TODAY!!!!!! to The Mixerman Radio Show - PART DEUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mixerman]

Yes, that's right. I'm getting together with Slippy and Aardy to record another Radio Show!

On December 22, 2006, YOU can call to talk to US. We want to hear from you, so pencil in the date, and start thinking up something intelligent to ask.

AND I MEAN INTELLIGENT PEOPLES! Otherwise, Slippy's going to barbeque your ass on Internet Radio, just like he did to Spock.

We're just working out the final details now. Slippy is asking for an enormous bump in his contract, but we're close to an agreement.

Watch this thread for future announcements for times and call-in day instructions.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Enjoy,

Mixerman

[Spock]

AND I MEAN INTELLIGENT PEOPLES! Otherwise, Slippy's going to barbeque your ass on Internet Radio, just like he did to Spock.


OK, you asked for it. :Twisted:

[Aardvark]

Yes, that's right. I'm getting together with Slippy and Aardy to record another Radio Show!

We are going to record a bunch of them and will be doing this in the greater NYC area. We should like to invite a few folks out for the live taping so if you are interested in joining the studio audience contact me for details. The date is the 22nd of December and the times are 1pm to 4pm EST.



Cheers,
Aardvark

[Tim Halligan]

The date is the 22nd of December and the times are 1pm to 4pm EST.


Thanks for thinking of your international audience in other timezones...again.

:Roll eyes:


Cheers,
Tim

[Aardvark]

Thanks for thinking of your international audience in other timezones...again.

:Roll eyes:


Cheers,
Tim

Yes...there had been serious consideration given to recording it from 2am until 5am EST, especially since it is a few days before Christmas and the staff, talent and audience members would not have to worry at all about buggering up their lives, be it local and regional travel arrangements, family and business commitments or accommodations. Somehow, that idea got voted down.:icon_eek: :lol:

The 1pm EST start is as wide a window for live participation as can be constructed for this session. It means North America and Europe are both able to join in at reasonable local hours.

Warn your sheep now that there will be a little coitus interruptus in a few weeks and keep your laptop near your hip-waders!


Hehehehe.


Remember that Mixerman lives thousands of miles from Slippy and me...and Slippy and moi are a seven or eight hour drive apart. Just getting us together in the same room is tricky from a logistical angle. We would love to do a show record from a European or South Asian locale but that will have to wait a bit.





Cheers,
Aardvark

[Tim Halligan]

Yes...there had been serious consideration given to recording it from 2am until 5am EST, especially since it is a few days before Christmas and the staff, talent and audience members would not have to worry at all about buggering up their lives, be it local and regional travel arrangements, family and business commitments or accommodations. Somehow, that idea got voted down.:icon_eek: :lol:


Yeah well...4am until 7am would've worked better for me anyway... :D

I guess it's always going to be the case that somebody is going to be miffed at the timing...

Oh the joys of having global reach.



Warn your sheep now that there will be a little coitus interruptus in a few weeks and keep your laptop near your hip-waders!


You've obviously mistaken me for a Kiwi. Perhaps you can forward this to Pimp-X...

:lol:


By the way, does this mean that there are no more instalments to come from the existing show in the interim?

Cheers,
Tim

[Smileyblue]

Hi all,

Since some of our members are not able to join us for the live call in on the 22nd, you can PM any questions you have to me and I will make sure that the Mixerman, Slipperman and Aardy address them on the show.

So come on guys, put your thinking caps on.....and come up with some serious, and some funny questions (you know Slipperfodder)

Smileyblue

[nobby]

Yeah well...4am until 7am would've worked better for me anyway... :D

I guess it's always going to be the case that somebody is going to be miffed at the timing...

Oh the joys of having global reach.


Hey, Mr. Goodnights'sleep, if you're not inclined to add a bit of amphetamine to the vegemite, send the Q on to 'Blue. While it's not the same as participating in the discussion, I'm sure you can come up with something that will generate a hearty discussion.


By the way, does this mean that there are no more instalments to come from the existing show in the interim?

Cheers,
Tim

I'd heard that a highly influential individual [AHEM] had suggested that Hans' call should be the showstopper that caps off that particular installment.

However, that's just a rumour, and it suggests that the parties involved, who I believe are regarded as having unquestionable integrity, actually edited the show.

[Mixerman]

5 days to the Mixerman Radio Show with Slipperman and Aardvark.

We will be taking your calls on Friday, December 22 from 1:30PM EST until about 3:30PM EST. EST=Eastern Standard Time. It is the time in New York which is GMT-5. That's evening in Europe. Daytime in the US. Very early Saturday morning in Australia and New Zealand.

We will be using the chatwomb as the queue system, so if you want to acquaint yourself with that, the link is right next to the "User CP" link on the grey bar above.

There is a very good possibility we will be taking calls via Skype. If you are not familiar with Skype, or if you do not have it on your computer, I would recommend getting it. Frankly, it's the best interent telephone system out there. It's easy to use, and it's a great way to communicate with people all over the world for free. That's right. It's free.

It's also full bandwidth. You feel like you're in the room with the person. I have done writing collaboration on Skype, something I have never actually been able to do effectively on the telephone.

If you're planning on calling the show, please let me know. I want to get a gague on how long we need to make the show. You can PM me. It's not a prerequisite to PM me in order to call the show. But it will help us out to have some idea what kind of traffic to expect.

There are more instructions forthcoming, so please keep checking in on this thread.

Thanks,

Mixerman, Slipperman, and (Aardvark).

[Mixerman]

That's right 4 days until call-ins for The Mixerman Radio Show with Slipperman and Aardvark!

Mixerman

[malice]

Naaaah,


It's only three days now...


malice

[malice]

2 days

time flies quicker than Mixerman to NY

malice

[knightsy]

Just wondering - when are we likely to hear the end product?

[malice]

Just wondering - when are we likely to hear the end product?

How can I respond to this ?

Okay, faster than for the first edition. But make no mistake, I'm gonna have to bust balls to get it up pronto.

OTOH, since we're here, things got a lot faster than when we we were tied to PSW.

maybe first week of January... Who knows ...


btw: only one day left


malice

[crunch]

But make no mistake, I'm gonna have to bust balls to get it up pronto.


Sounds like that would have just the opposite effect...


:D

[malice]

You'll see :D


TODAY IS THE DAY !



malice

[saxplayerz]

Can we listen to the show live via Skype using the conference feature ? :icon_eek:

[Charles Dye]

Great talking with you guys!

Sorry I couldn't be up there with ya!!


"I disagree." - Mixerman


WOW, just look @ those things just fly off the shelf.

The sheer marketing genius of MM.

[Mixerman]

Thanks to all who called into the show today. It was a blast, and I'm happy to report that I think this one is going to be better than the last. Aardy has taken the files, and is going to rerecord all of our parts. We should have the first segment shortly.

Very shortly.

Mixerman

[Aardvark]

Many thanks to all of the production staff and a special thanks to our studio audience members...some of whom drove many hours to join us.

Extra special thanks to our hostess with the mostest.


I will start to work on this in two days and hope to have some episodes ready shortly after that.


We did have a lawyer on site and except for Charles Dye nobody needs to be heavily edited...


:icon_eek: :Razz: :Razz:


.... needless to say we are indebted to the callers who were kind enough to cue-up and and wait their turn to have Slippy threaten their private parts.


Well done all.



Cheers,
Aardvark

[Jason Phair]

I'm still not sure whether or not I lost my internet connection or y'all hung up on me :grin:

[Aardvark]

I'm still not sure whether or not I lost my internet connection or y'all hung up on me :grin:


I think Kenny knocked your connection off the 'net when he hit his head on the mic for the fourth or fifth time.


A nice boy, a wee bit dim but a nice boy.


Thanks for the call Jason, sorry about Kenny.



Cheers,
Aardvark

:Wink: :lol:

[nobby]

I had a great time. I haven't been to Slipperman's SBS (Smiley Blue Studios) in two years.

Kudos to all involved. Special thanks to Slippy for accommodating this buch of unkempt, surly social misfits, um, I mean, our esteemed colleagues, and to our gracious hostess, SBG (great buffet, BTW!)

Malice, you are busted for CWI :grin:

[ajcamlet]

Kudos to Slippy & SBG for the hospitality!

It was great meeting all of you- i had many conversations that nite and i think remember exactly *half* of them.

alan

[nobby]

Kudos to Slippy & SBG for the hospitality!

It was great meeting all of you- i had many conversations that nite and i think remember exactly *half* of them.

alan

It was nice meeting you, ajcamlet.


One of the cool things about Slippy's studio I had forgotten about was the diffusers made from the broken skulls of interns who didn't move fast enough.

They seem to have gotten bigger since the last time I was there.

[Slipperman]

What a debacle.

As before... MM hogged the mic, shouting random obscenities with abject vitriol, interspersed with scurrilous innuendo and vague, if not incoherent, threats.

Routinely intimidating both callers and co-hosts.

A clearly inebriated and mentally unstable megalomaniac.

And again... his strange, troll-like confederate, Aardvark, steered the show in aimless tangents, leering lasciviously at the mostly female audience(many of whom had travelled thousands of miles for a glimpse of my adonis-like visage in person) only to be horrifyingly groped and drooled upon by the tiny evil Canadian.

My milquetoastic and well meaning efforts to act as the sole voice of benevolent reason in a burning wilderness of schism, were cast aside in the usual maelstrom of rampaging egos and bitter political infighting.

I don't know how much more I can stand without substantial additional compensation.

SM.

[Charles Dye]

A bunch of engineers in a room + "egos" were @ issue?

WOW. I never...

[MudCat]

I enjoyed talking with you guys, SM.....thanks especially to you and MM for making my relatively basic question (How do you guys mike a mandolin?) both informative and interesting. I came away with some good stuff, and I will use it the next time I record mandolin tracks.

thanks, mudcat

[Aardvark]

I have just mixed some new episodes...a few touches left and then we are good to go...stay tuned!


Cheers,
Aardvark

[Cheech]

Holy Crap I cant wait!!!! Its like Christmas again...YES!!!!

[crunch]

I think it's interesting to note it was recorded in 4 hours and has only taken 13 days for minor tweaks. Will it help if I send you my copy of Cool Edit Pro?

:lol:

Just giving you shit Aardy, looking forward to it.

:grin:

Hug, hug, Kiss, Big Hug, little kiss, Big Kiss, Big Hug, kiss, hug.

Happy New Year!

[Aardvark]

The cleaning invovled is massive. There were twenty-seven AE's at the record...a recipe for clusterfuck. In addition, the talent seemed unaware that speaking into the mics is a good thing as is turning off their cell phones. The talent also had a number of other bad recording habits like knocking the mic stands with their feet, smacking their heads on the mics as well as pounding the tables and wandering off to the buffet whilst talking.

I have half of it ready and am mixing as I write this (bouncing actually)...

Check in tonight for some new ones.


Cheers,
Aardvark

[jerryskid]

You must also remember that Ardy has to erase and rerecord all parts of the show, and that takes time!!!...Plus the Habs probably played a few times which slows Ardy's work down considerably!

:D

[Mixerman]

Hey all,

We're going to have Radio Show segments up in the next 24 hours. It would have been done faster, but we've all been travelling.

Enjoy,

Mixerman

[ajcamlet]

The cleaning invovled is massive. There were twenty-seven AE's at the record...a recipe for clusterfuck. In addition, the talent seemed unaware that speaking into the mics is a good thing as is turning off their cell phones. The talent also had a number of other bad recording habits like knocking the mic stands with their feet, smacking their heads on the mics as well as pounding the tables and wandering off to the buffet whilst talking.


While i'm definetly not *talant* (or talanted for that reason,) i'm guilty of all of the above

ajc

[pounce]

yeah, somebody (kenny) took a phone call (kenny) while i was on the show (kenny) even though that unamed person (kenny) should have known to (kenny) turn his cell phone off.


ps: (kenny)

[Aardvark]

I have put five new episodes up on the server...hopefully they will make the radio player shortly.


Cheers,
Aardvark


P.S. Might be best to start with the Charles Dye segment...it will help explain a few things later on.

[jerryskid]

Cooooooool.................

[Goes211]

5 NEW EPISODES ARE NOW ONLINE for your listening pleasure.
:Coolio:

[Charles Dye]

Nope, they's not.


:guywithconfusedlookonface: :guywithconfusedlookonface: :guywithconfusedlookonface:

[Goes211]

Nope, they's not.


:guywithconfusedlookonface: :guywithconfusedlookonface: :guywithconfusedlookonface:

Yes theyz are.
You need TO CLEAR YOUR CACHE every once in a while.
Let me know if it works for you.

:guykindatiredofrepeatingstuffoverandover:

[knightsy]

Cleared cache, still not working (although I downloaded them off someone else's machine). XP Pro, Firefox 1.5.0.9


And wow, Charles took quite a beating! To me, as a guy who hasn't had much opportunity to work with the classic gear that the moderators here have, that came across as a little mean spirited. Not just towards Charles, but toward all us young guys who are trying to make some way forward in the game despite our limited opportunities for professional education.

[Goes211]

Cleared cache, still not working (although I downloaded them off someone else's machine). XP Pro, Firefox 1.5.0.9


And wow, Charles took quite a beating! To me, as a guy who hasn't had much opportunity to work with the classic gear that the moderators here have, that came across as a little mean spirited. Not just towards Charles, but toward all us young guys who are trying to make some way forward in the game despite our limited opportunities for professional education.

Hey Knighsty,
just wondering, when you clear you cache in Firefox (Tools/Clear private data/cache) the new items still don't show up ?

I wouldn't worry too much about Charles, I believe a lot of that was in jest. I think it only shows that the important thing is the result and not how you achieve it. And nobody can fault Charles for his results.
Mixerman finds it easier to obtain a great sound in a different way. That doesn't mean that's the only way.
:Coolio:

[Charles Dye]

Not in jest. I loaded the page from scratch. Both site + radio b4 my 1st post.

[Goes211]

Hey Charles,
I'm not sure if "loading from scratch" clears your cache.
We need to look into how the browser handles that.

The principle (sorry for being redundant) being that your cache stores the images and data of a website you've already visited before, making it faster to reload the next time you visit. The update of the info doesn't always work as intended.
Therefore, usually either hitting "refresh" or clearing the cache will do the trick.

What browser are you using ?

[pounce]

fwiw - i had to clear my cache to have the new segments load up. now i'm listening to you charles. all you need to do is clear the cache.

[knightsy]

Hey Knighsty,
just wondering, when you clear you cache in Firefox (Tools/Clear private data/cache) the new items still don't show up ?

Yeah, that's exactly it. In fact, I've tried clearing cookies, the whole shebang, even tried the same thing in Internet Explorer. No joy... I dunno.

[Charles Dye]

Loading from scratch (Opt-Click-Reload) should freshly load all assets directly from site, but... I guess not.

Clearing cache worked fine.

Thanks!


BTW-my browser is Safari.


:goes211isafunnyguy: :goes211isafunnyguy: :goes211isafunnyguy:

[Goes211]

Thanks for the heads up, we need to investigate what we can do to make it show up automatically.
Learning as we go along. :Coolio:

Enjoy the episodes.

[Tim Halligan]

Luckily the main protagonists weren't on a film set...

Kenny owes the sound recordist a carton of beer.

Slippy needs to oil some hinges on his studio doors.

And all of you guys need to get some fucking mic technique...

Cheers,
Tim

[malice]

Slippy needs to oil some hinges on his studio doors.




you think ?


:D

malice

[Aardvark]

Cleared cache, still not working (although I downloaded them off someone else's machine). XP Pro, Firefox 1.5.0.9


And wow, Charles took quite a beating! To me, as a guy who hasn't had much opportunity to work with the classic gear that the moderators here have, that came across as a little mean spirited. Not just towards Charles, but toward all us young guys who are trying to make some way forward in the game despite our limited opportunities for professional education.


Sorry if it did...it was not meant to be mean spirited in the least. The idea of that part of the discussion was related to points of reference...how can you decide if the Tape saturation plug sounds like tape saturation if you have never actually experienced saturating the tape...that sort of thing.

Charles is a champ btw...he can handle any and all interviewers. I thought we were much meaner to Kenny.


Cheers,
Aardvark
:lol: :Wink:

[myrtlebacker]

how can you decide if the Tape saturation plug sounds like tape saturation if you have never actually experienced saturating the tape...

In what way would that knowledge improve my mixing ?

[Tim Armstrong]

The idea of that part of the discussion was related to points of reference...how can you decide if the Tape saturation plug sounds like tape saturation if you have never actually experienced saturating the tape...that sort of thing.

I got it that Charles was saying that you can decide if the tape saturation plug sounds GOOD, which is probably more to the point!

At least he took partial responsibilty for the Loudness Wars!!!

:lol:

Cheers, Tim

[Jason Phair]

What noone got to hear about my second part, thanks to the Star-Trek inspired uproar, and my internet connection failing, was that I asked "why, with all these negative stereotypes, do so many AE's like hockey, when it's so obviously ghey?"

[Mixerman]

Cleared cache, still not working (although I downloaded them off someone else's machine). XP Pro, Firefox 1.5.0.9


And wow, Charles took quite a beating! To me, as a guy who hasn't had much opportunity to work with the classic gear that the moderators here have, that came across as a little mean spirited. Not just towards Charles, but toward all us young guys who are trying to make some way forward in the game despite our limited opportunities for professional education.

Not being mean at all. Charles is a friend of mine, and I have no problem with him being a champion of ITB mixing. I mean, that's why he's here.

And I'm certainly not being to young guys who only have ITB available to them. My issue is not with ITB mixing. It's with the contention by people that have never worked in any other fashion, that ITB is as good if not better than the former more analog way of doing things.

Mixerman

[Charles Dye]

... the former more analog way of doing things.

Mixerman

*BAA.... BAAAAAAAAAAAMMMM!!!*




What the HELL was that?!!

The last nail.

Wadya mean, LAST NAIL?!

The last nail in the analog coffin.

WHY...?!

Just note the date and time, because Mixerman, the King of Luddittes, defender of all that is analog... just called analog the "former" way of doing things.

OOOOOOHHHHHHH...



In typical MM fashion, he'll weasel out of it in his response, saying what he said was the former "more analog way".

But we all know what just happened...



January 6, 2007...

A day that will live in analog infamy.

[Mixerman]

*BAA.... BAAAAAAAAAAAMMMM!!!*




What the HELL was that?!!

The last nail.

Wadya mean, LAST NAIL?!

The last nail in the analog coffin.

WHY...?!

Just note the date and time, because Mixerman, the King of Luddittes, defender of all that is analog... just called analog the "former" way of doing things.

OOOOOOHHHHHHH...



In typical MM fashion, he'll weasel out of it in his response, saying what he said was the former "more analog way".

But we all know what just happened...



January 6, 2007...

A day that will live in analog infamy.

Charles,

You're fired.

Thanks,

Mixerman

[Charles Dye]

Charles,

You're fired.

Thanks,

Mixerman

Luv ya 2 bro!

:lameemoticonreplacement: :lameemoticonreplacement: :lameemoticonreplacement:

[magicchord]

3 words:

Digital Telephone Hybrid

They're great. :D

luvyabye...

[blackieC]

Can't we all just get along?















You know, even if analog is still better and stuff.




Just to prove I'm not kissing MM's ass, here's a bunch of smilies.

:grin: :lol: :icon_eek: :D Evil! :Confused: :) :Coolio: :Mad: :Roll eyes: :Surprised: :Twisted: :Uh oh: :Wink: :Yawn: :Razz:
:Twisted: :very happy: :Cry: :Coolio: Evil! :icon_eek: :grin: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Charles Dye]

In what way would that knowledge improve my mixing ?

It won't.

There is NO need for you to have 1st hand experience with tape to KNOW whether you like it's sound.

My point is that we all know what it sounds like, whether we've used a 24 trk analog machine or not, cuz we've been listening to records for decades that have that sound all over them.

We all inherently know what analog saturation sounds like.

[gbacklin]

Thanks for the heads up, we need to investigate what we can do to make it show up automatically.
Learning as we go along. :Coolio:

Enjoy the episodes.
Here is a good discussion on cache.....

http://wdvl.com/Internet/Cache/index.html


.....now back to our regular programming....



Take Care,
Gene

[Goes211]

Thanks Gene !
we're looking into it.
:Coolio:

[Aardvark]

We all inherently know what analog saturation sounds like.


Not so sure of that Charles. There are young AE's who may only know what an imitation of tape sat sounds like...to say they have heard the reel thing is to make a leap in logic...how do we know they have listened to the same old records we did?

You said yourself we have a generation with no analog experience and I suggest we will soon have a generation who have never heard the real thing as the records of bygone days matter less and less to folks whose taste does not bring them to those productions we grew up on and associate with tape whacking.

Let's take the example of a plate reverb. There was a time when most studios had one...time long passed.

I bet most folks have never used one and never will. Does someone who has never used one really know what a plate sounds like....or just what a Lexicon version sounds like...or in fact do they associate what it sounds like with maybe an early Roy Orbison record or a Patsy Cline? Are kids today listening to Patsy Cline and Roy? (Two good examples of plate use I would think)

We might inherently know what pleases or displeases us when it comes to sounds but to say we inherently know what a certain series of physical events sounds like is somewhat specious.


I am reminded of the '70's marketing tag...


"Genuine imitation leather"


All said and done who cares how and what...if a record sounds good it is good.


Cheers,
Aardvark

[Brendo]

I'm 20.

Do I listen to Roy and Patsy? No.

Do I know what "Tape" sounds like? Honestly, no.

Can I hear the difference between the digital 2 buss and a desk? For sure.

[Bob Olhsson]

To me the main problem with ITB mixing is that it's way too easy to over-think what you're doing when you work in a serial fashion. Working in parallel, you push up some knobs and respond to the results you hear. Any intimidation with the process helps because it keeps you from getting lost in the ego tripping that often accompanies conceptual thinking. I actually like using presets because they force me to make a judgement in response rather than trying to defend my own "brilliant" ideas..

When you think too much, you lose all objectivity. It's why spliced up non-automated mixes will almost always beat automated ones.

[Charles Dye]

There are young AE's who may only know what an imitation of tape sat sounds like...to say they have heard the reel thing is to make a leap in logic...

You're absolutely right, sales of all records recorded prior to 2000 have stopped completely.



Dood, ya gotta talk to some kidz...

Sales of 60's + 70's albums are doing incredibly well with the 13 - 25 yr demographic. I think you + I would agree that a lot of that music feels timeless to us. Well, it seems that timeless quality appears to transcend age. Today, kidz are listening to some of the same records we grew up on.

To say that soemone has never heard an album with analog tape saturation...

Now, that my friend is a huge leap in logic.




Let's start right here @ the Womb...


Is there anyone reading this who believes they've never heard a recording from the 60's or 70's?

[Aardvark]

Now, now Charles, you are missing my germane point. I used the Plate example for a reason...I know well people listen to older records but one day those older records will include many of today's contemporary records...the herd will be thinned.

The distance from the original listening experience and the chances of having those experiences are going to increase and eventually be non-representative by dint of simple movement of time.

Like the Plate, the Analog tape saturation experience will not be near the norm it once was.

How many of the kids today are hearing those old record the way we did??? How many actually have vinyl and how many are listening to them on mp3?

That is another example of the distance from experience I refer to.

How does all of this distance allow a listening recognition to be inherent?

That is what does not make sense. I repeat...you may inherently recognise what you like or don't but I can't see how a sonic signature related to electronics can ever be inherent as per our recognition.

Cheers,
Aardvark

[dikledoux]

...Dood, ya gotta talk to some kidz...

<and>

...Is there anyone reading this who believes they've never heard a recording from the 60's or 70's?
Same as it ever was. There are going to be kids who have a grasp of history and will benefit from that, and there will be those who don't and only achieve by raw talent or blind luck.

So good recordings will continue to be made long after the last good desk disappears, but people will stop saying things like "this recording has a nice analog quality to it..." and start saying "this recording sounds good..." Teminologies and working methods will change, but a good recording will survive on its own merits. And good recordings can be done ITB, just like bad recordings can be done with the best equipment.

dik

[Charles Dye]

Now, now Aard, these arguments are circular + redundant.

They're also boring + irrelevant.

Your state of ludditity is preventing you from progressing. This is a problem for you, not young AEs.

As you said, "All said and done who cares how and what...if a record sounds good it is good."

And on that we agree completely.

[Aardvark]

Now, now Aard, these arguments are circular + redundant.

They're also boring + irrelevant.

Your state of ludditity is preventing you from progressing. This is a problem for you, not young AEs.

As you said, "All said and done who cares how and what...if a record sounds good it is good."

And on that we agree completely.

Well, I guess shooting at the messanger is fair game.

I bought my first SoundTools rig in '92 btw. I believe I share, with my old partner, the distinction of the first non-linear national television broadcast on CBC's HNIC later that year.

Some tools suit some AE's better for certain jobs...I use what I like as needed but I don't restrict my choices...


...do you?

:Wink: :Razz: :grin:


Cheers,
Aardvark

[maccool]

forum software fucked up.

[maccool]

How old am?

53

what kind of sounds did I grow up with?

analog tape to vinyl.

How long have been playng guitar?

40 years.

What is wrong with PTLE on my G5 Mac?

Nothing I can hear.

What pre's do I use?

ISA 428

What mic's do I use?

Geffel M300's, M149, TLM103, C451/CK1

I this not awesome capability for an amateur?

Yes it is.

Is the rest down to me?

Absolutely.

If I can't make good recordings with this lot, then I should give it up. It will, of necessity, be ITB. Amen.

[Charles Dye]

I don't restrict my choices...


...do you?

:Wink: :Razz: :grin:

Absolutely... all the time.

Restricting choices during creation is always a good idea. Taking the uncomfortable path can lead to very pleasant surprises.

Unlimited choices is most certainly not an inherently good thing.

Unlimited trax, unlimited sounds, unlimited time + unlimited ideas have lead to some of the most over produced piles of crap ever put to tape or disk.

[Mixerman]

Absolutely... all the time.

Restricting choices during creation is always a good idea. Taking the uncomfortable path can lead to very pleasant surprises.

Unlimited choices is most certainly not an inherently good thing.

Unlimited trax, unlimited sounds, unlimited time + unlimited ideas have lead to some of the most over produced piles of crap ever put to tape or disk.

I don't know Charles. Apples and oranges there my man. Aardy has made a very good point, and I'm not talking about the one on the top of his head. Yes, unlimited choices are not inheretly a good thing. But do you ever listen to an act, and think to yourself that 2" through an analog console would be the better way to go? I have listened to groups and decided that digital was the better way to go. I have chosen to work in hybrid fashion.

As much as I can't stand Alsihad, I do use the beast. And if I had to mix ITB, I could. I know the best workaround is in stems, and I have Dangerous Mixers (which are basically Dangerous 2-busses with volume pots) which I use for this situation.

I hardly think choosing a tool based on the project fits into the "too many choices" argument, seeing as usually we generally pick one (sometimes two) and go with it barring any issues.

Mixerman

[myrtlebacker]

There are young AE's who may only know what an imitation of tape sat sounds like...to say they have heard the reel thing is to make a leap in logic...how do we know they have listened to the same old records we did?

For what ? I can emphasize with you, that a good part of your accumulated AE knowledge is getting more and more obsolete. But who cares besides you ? Of what benefit is that knowledge to a young AE ?

If some young AE in the near future wants to reproduce the sound of a Led Zeppelin album, there is the record and enough written knowledge about the engineering practices of that day, so he can figure out what was used and try to reproduce that sound with his means. (Maybe he will load up "Aardvark's legendary Led Zeppelin Mix Preset" into his digital console and expand on that :) )

[Shan]

...And if I had to mix ITB, I could. I know the best workaround is in stems, and I have Dangerous Mixers (which are basically Dangerous 2-busses with volume pots) which I use for this situation.

Mixerman

A bit off topic here, but I actually wouldnt mind learning some more about your hybrid approach and the workarounds etc you use in this situation.

I've been looking at the external summing boxes recently and will probably give it a try. Any tips and advice from experienced users such as yourself(and others here) would be great. Thanks.

Shane

[knightsy]

Not being mean at all. Charles is a friend of mine, and I have no problem with him being a champion of ITB mixing. I mean, that's why he's here.

And I'm certainly not being to young guys who only have ITB available to them. My issue is not with ITB mixing. It's with the contention by people that have never worked in any other fashion, that ITB is as good if not better than the former more analog way of doing things.

Mixerman

Fair enough. Maybe I was tired and emotional when I first heard it!

[dwoz]

Kenny owes the sound recordist a carton of beer.

Cheers,
Tim

I always knew you aussies "went down the drain the wrong way" so to speak, but may I ask...when you stop at the store on your way home from work, do you pick up a six-pack of milk?

dwoz

[dwoz]

I've got a question.



We have these tools in the analog world, called compressors. Typically, these things were made of an assortment of metal, plastic, carbon and glass (maybe even some mica or feldspar).

The raison d’être of these so-called "compressors" was to emulate, at low-to-moderate gain levels, the effect that happens inside the human ear (and in speakers) at high gain levels...the "flattening out" of our perception of dynamics.

These days, we have ITB plugins that emulate those real-world silicon and carbon life forms...compressor plugs that purport to sound like an 1176, for example.

Ok, you're with me so far?

Now, we have plugs that emulate plate reverbs. For those of you born after 1980, a plate reverb is a big sheet of metal with two transducers on it, one to excite it, one to listen to the result.

These plate reverbs were emulations of physical spaces...meant to try to sound like real, big spaces where perhaps thousands of people would gather to hear sound that actually came out of musical instruments, without anything else in between the listener and the instrument. No shuffle, shuttle, replay, random play, on or off. SOunds crazy, I know...but our forbears were a curious lot!

anyway, plate reverb plugs are EMULATIONS OF EMULATIONS. In fact, so are many compressor plugs. Pultec-inspired plugs? same thing. etc., etc..

So, on to my question.


Would you characterize emulation plugs as being:

a) an ergonomic choice...you're used to working with the original and you're comfortable with that control layout;

b) a pure marketing play...cashing in on brand; or perhaps

c) as these old units tried to emulate real physical things, they imparted their own sonic footprint that turns out to be quite nice in and of itself, regardless of what it was TRYING to sound like. or maybe you believe

d) emulation plugs are irrelevant nonsense.


Why would I want to use an emulation of an emulation of Royal Albert Hall, if I could actually use a new-generation plug that has a very good IR capture of the hall itself?

Why would I want to use a new-generation plug that has a very good IR capture of Royal Albert Hall, if what I'm really interested in is the sound of a plate reverb?

How do I know which of these two questions to ask?

so many questions, so few brain cells...

dwoz

[J.G.]

Unlimited trax, unlimited sounds, unlimited time + unlimited ideas have lead to some of the most over produced piles of crap ever put to tape or disk.

Amen Charles, not to mention some of the wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidest asses in the biz.

If left to a set of limited, albeit taaaaaastey devices, so many songs could/would/should take a modest chunk of turnaround time for completion, but with today's endless virtual aisles of plug-in shoppin'-mall-miles, the process can be so dragged out that it's measurable by grey-hair-counts.

Sometimes less really is more.

Plus, I hate shoppin'.

; J

[Bob Olhsson]

I have a philosophical problem with the whole concept of emulation. The main point of what we do is to create an extraordinary, larger than life musical experience for the listener. Balance and dynamic control are just tools. Musicians playing with a great dynamic balance sound much better than anything we try to do after the fact.

[chrisj]

I'd like to raise the question of what happens if you accomplish some of the things you were originally doing analog, with software. We've all heard Charles' work and it uses extensive 'tape and channel emulation'. I didn't like the sound of Analog Channel and made different choices. I can show an example, since I just did IMP 9 on another forum and it's gone public, freeing me to show the mix.

http://www.airwindows.com/m/IMP9chrisj.mp3

I had fun, and used many MILAR tricks, but the goodness of the mix itself isn't the point. How many people, listening to the texture of this, would identify it as ITB? I really think I erred far in the other direction, and it sounds excessively, uncommercially 'retro'. Yet it, too, is a product of as many as five plugins per channel. The difference is in the flavors of plugin for tasks like compression, the flavors of saturation/distortion in use, and the presence of a plugin which I don't think Charles uses the equivalent of, a slew clipper. That more than anything is what stops elements coming forward and buries them in simulated analog mud...

If you can take care of basic tasks like applying trace amounts of distortion and transient slowing in software, on every single channel and aux and buss, it appears to me you can mimick 'analog size, scale, warmth' and all. It seems like the transient slowing is what produces depth and maybe 'warmth', where the distortion doesn't actually make 'warmth' but it pushes the body of sounds forward and boosts the intensity.

I think missing this stuff is a massive oversight on the part of most 'ITB' mixers, because Charles is right- every little stage of the mix needs its own layer of it. First on the drum track, then more on the drum submix in parallel with it, a bit more on the 2-buss: just as with a real console you'd have tiny losses on the track, the submix, the buss. I do think it's easy to go way overboard, which makes me wish there was a 'global effect knob' feature that you could put this stuff everywhere on 'zero' and then creep up the global knob a tiny bit until things sound right but not like uncleaned tape heads from 1971 through a tube console with power supply issues. In my example I have achieved that happy state, so there's nowhere to go but up from there.

But my point is, yeah, so I used plugins to pretty convincingly (I thought- am I right?) get sickeningly retro and oldie-sounding. So? So these are knobs. That's what's exciting about the fake ITB world. If you have crap imitations of analog qualities, you still can adjust them to taste. When you get better imitations, or things which address the same sonic qualities without imitating any specific analog device, you still have knobs and you can still adjust them to taste...

Is that making sense? I grew up really hating CDs relative to vinyl, but at this point I would be very reluctant to get into any analog console because I am too interested in the equivalent of, not using console EQ, but swapping out op-amps to speed or slow the sound on a channel by channel basis, swapping out coupling caps to make some channels big and others lack weight, that sort of thing.

I don't think it makes a bit of difference whether these things resemble real old gear- what matters is whether the plugin stuff typically lacks a behavior like dulling transients or saturating peaks. I think with the correct software you can choose many types of sound that INCLUDE, not just imitate, the classic console sounds... for even bizarre versions of 'classic console'. You just have to do the right processing or it's like trying to do reverb with equalized regenerating slapback echo... when you could be doing convolution reverb.

Emulation means you have to do the RIGHT things to the data, not just similar things. Even if it's computationally expensive- or seems like overkill 'just to fake an analog sound'.

[dwoz]

...and the presence of a plugin which I don't think Charles uses the equivalent of, a slew clipper. That more than anything is what stops elements coming forward and buries them in simulated analog mud...

... It seems like the transient slowing is what produces depth and maybe 'warmth', where the distortion doesn't actually make 'warmth' but it pushes the body of sounds forward and boosts the intensity.
...


So, you've invented the "Sonic Anti-Maximizer"? Kind of an "Anti-matter Aphex Exciter" ?


...who knew?


:lol: :lol: :lol:

dwoz

p.s. - that plug was utterly, absolutely SHAMELESS. An entirely gratuitous mention of http://www.airwindows.com. You should be ashamed of yourself for such nakedly self-serving mention of http://www.airwindows.com.

[dikledoux]

So I gotta weigh in on this... Yeah I'm a relative newb and yeah I haven't had the opp to get on to larger format consoles and yeah, yeah, yeah. BUT...

paraphrase
EMULATION
EMULATION
EMULATION
/paraphrase

It's ALL a fucking emulation of the actual sound for chrissake! Let's have a look at the sacred word ANALOG:
"of or pertaining to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable, as voltage or pressure."

It's valid to argue that analog gear represents sound with more resolution (at the molecular level as opposed to sample rate and bit depth) but beyond that the only things worthwhile talking about are what the recording sounds like and what options does a particular tool give you. No offense to MM, but the most goofy thing I've every heard him say was ~"with ITB you gotta jump through a lotta fuckin' hoops to get blah blah blah..." Are you telling me that a quarter million bucks in desk and outboard hardware isn't a friggin' HUGE HOOP to jump through?

From what I can see, the only point that Charles is playing champion to is that you can get results ITB if you're willing to stop gnashing and wailing about how it's different and start working WITH the difference.

dik

[dwoz]

dik...sure. but is it just simple emulation...or meta-emulation, or meta-meta-emulation...and what sort of value judgements can we or should we make about that?

dwoz

[dikledoux]

dik...sure. but is it just simple emulation...or meta-emulation, or meta-meta-emulation...and what sort of value judgements can we or should we make about that?

dwoz
hee hee - you're making my tiny brain throb :lol:

Honestly I don't care what level of emulation or what level removed from the original. Does it sound good coming across the speakers? Does it get the point across?

When I went to the National Galleries with my Mom, she'd look at the abstract paintings and ask "what's it supposed to be?" The answer of course is that it's not supposed to be anything other than what it is.. a thing unto itself. Just like the sound that comes across the monitors.

"Why did you go for that brushy/stroky quality? Why did you use oil or acrylic?" Who cares? The only reason to have this discussion is for stricly academic purposes - to learn HOW you got what you got, not to determine if one path was right/wrong better/worse than the next.

dik

<edited cuz I forgot to finsh my thought - surprise, surprise>

dik

[chrisj]

It's about 'is this mimicking of something else happening in all the domains it needs to, in order to be effective?'

I am certain that some of the amp modelers we know and loathe are mimicking a speaker cab by _equalizing_ the response.

Convolution reverb does ever so much better, by also capturing time domain behavior, and by using a convolution kernel we more perfectly approach the behavior of a small resonating object in a small acoustic space...

...assuming that object always resonates EXACTLY the same no matter what frequency is being put into it....

...and so it goes.

I don't think there's anything to console electronics besides the highpassing behavior of coupling caps, and the slew limiting of op-amps and physical circuitry.

And the noise, of course, but I choose not to try and mimic that. Not with a 32 bit float buss. If I had to keep going back to 24 bits linear, I'd prefer to dither, which would mimic that noise reasonably.

And even smaller time-domain behaviors of slightly microphonic parts resonating and being driven by electrical impulses.

And then there's whatever degree of hysteresis to the capacitors that you've got... nonlinearities, weirdnesses, such as I think you get in tantalum caps even when they're healthy...

How far are you willing to go to mimic a physical electronic device that only costs you half a million dollars? Or in my case one that costs you 'bring your own truck to haul it away, and a trash bag for the tubes that fall out when you lift it' :D

[Mixerman]

So I gotta weigh in on this... Yeah I'm a relative newb and yeah I haven't had the opp to get on to larger format consoles and yeah, yeah, yeah. BUT...



It's ALL a fucking emulation of the actual sound for chrissake! Let's have a look at the sacred word ANALOG:
"of or pertaining to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable, as voltage or pressure."

It's valid to argue that analog gear represents sound with more resolution (at the molecular level as opposed to sample rate and bit depth) but beyond that the only things worthwhile talking about are what the recording sounds like and what options does a particular tool give you. No offense to MM, but the most goofy thing I've every heard him say was ~"with ITB you gotta jump through a lotta fuckin' hoops to get blah blah blah..." Are you telling me that a quarter million bucks in desk and outboard hardware isn't a friggin' HUGE HOOP to jump through?

No offense taken, but I'm speaking strictly as the end user. I don't care what anyone says, it takes longer and requires more work to MIX from, or in, a computer than it does through a console. I have to DO far less to the signal when mixing from 2" through a console. And that's versus ANY digital product. Charles can disagree. You can disagree. But from a strictly sonic standpoint, there are less "hoops" to jump through in the analog world.

I mix regularly from PT, and I mix regularly from Radar, and I mix regularly from 2". And given similar recording qualities, I ALWAYS require far less processing in the analog method. I'm with Charles in the idea that I'll "do what it takes." But the less time I have to work on the actual sonic aspects of a mix, that is, the less time I have to spend on making the instruments sonically work together in a congruous way, the better the mix is going to be. Because a GREAT mix isn't about the sound. It's about evoking an emotional response out of a listener. That's done by framing an exciting performance in an exciting and effective way.

So yeah, SONIC hoops are a problem. And for whatever reason, in the digital world, I have to work much harder to put a sonic landscape together.

Mixerman

[ajcamlet]

Because a GREAT mix isn't about the sound. It's about evoking an emotional response out of a listener. That's done by framing an exciting performance in an exciting and effective way.

Mixerman


Well Said!
















(thankgoditsnotalwaysabouthesound!)

[ajcamlet]

y'know.

lemme also pontificate here for a moment. Why am i fixated on my Rep power?..

I wish i was as fixated on say my................ CREDIT SCORE

but im not.

Goddammit both SUCK!!!

[Charles Dye]

Are you telling me that a quarter million bucks in desk and outboard hardware isn't a friggin' HUGE HOOP to jump through?

The biggest.

From what I can see, the only point that Charles is playing champion to is that you can get results ITB if you're willing to stop gnashing and wailing about how it's different and start working WITH the difference.

Abso-fuggin-lutely. Spot on.

[Kenny Gioia]

No offense taken, but I'm speaking strictly as the end user. I don't care what anyone says, it takes longer and requires more work to MIX from, or in, a computer than it does through a console. I have to DO far less to the signal when mixing from 2" through a console. And that's versus ANY digital product. Charles can disagree. You can disagree. But from a strictly sonic standpoint, there are less "hoops" to jump through in the analog world.

I mix regularly from PT, and I mix regularly from Radar, and I mix regularly from 2". And given similar recording qualities, I ALWAYS require far less processing in the analog method. I'm with Charles in the idea that I'll "do what it takes." But the less time I have to work on the actual sonic aspects of a mix, that is, the less time I have to spend on making the instruments sonically work together in a congruous way, the better the mix is going to be. Because a GREAT mix isn't about the sound. It's about evoking an emotional response out of a listener. That's done by framing an exciting performance in an exciting and effective way.

So yeah, SONIC hoops are a problem. And for whatever reason, in the digital world, I have to work much harder to put a sonic landscape together.

Mixerman

I completely and utterly disagree.

Charles may require 4 billion plugins but I don't. Plugins degrade the sound IMHO so the more you use, the worse it sounds.

I use very little. And I mix much quicker ITB. Although I'm really summing using the Folcrom and a pair of Neves.

How do I mix quicker? I'm mixing while I'm tracking. It's all total recall. When I start, I'm already there. If a sound isn't working during tracking, I tweak it then or I change the sound. I'm always monitoring a finished (so far) product for two reasons. 1. It's more psyche for the artist and I. 2. It's not a waste of time because it's not going anywhere.

And I save a astonishing amount of time on recall and recall sheets. Those of you with boards don't take your mix off the console until you've nailed it. Not me. If I feel that I'm losing some perspective, "Save As" and move on to a new song. I can listen to it at home and take notes there. Then "Open file" and I'm right where I left off. Exactly. No more, "does the vocal sound wetter today?" "Did somebody swap channels 18 and 24 yesterday? They sound different?" etc.

It's all about adjusting your work habits. And I look at these huge boards and I really feel sad for the owners of them. I was working on a 64 channel VR today and I couldn't imagine the amount of work that went into installing the beast.

It's a shame.

Peace.

[Shan]

...How do I mix quicker? I'm mixing while I'm tracking. It's all total recall. When I start, I'm already there. If a sound isn't working during tracking, I tweak it then or I change the sound. I'm always monitoring a finished (so far) product for two reasons. 1. It's more psyche for the artist and I. 2. It's not a waste of time because it's not going anywhere.

Funny you mentioned this. I will be trying this for the first time on a current mix project because of the deadline they want it done by.

And I save a astonishing amount of time on recall and recall sheets. Those of you with boards don't take your mix off the console until you've nailed it. Not me.

The instant recall is definitely a big bonus. I just had a band call me to make a small change to their mix and they needed it ASAP. I closed the current mix I was working on, opened up theirs, made the change and fired it up onto their server for the mastering shop. I then closed that session, opened up the current mix I was doing and continued my work. That whole cycle took about 5 minutes. :Thumbsup:

Shane

[dikledoux]

... But the less time I have to work on the actual sonic aspects of a mix, that is, the less time I have to spend on making the instruments sonically work together in a congruous way, the better the mix is going to be. Because a GREAT mix isn't about the sound. It's about evoking an emotional response out of a listener.
Fair enough, and I understand that the time you spend fighting the sonic aspects is best minimized. For you, it's more efficient and inspiring to work OTB. But in my low-rent world, if I have to wait til I get access to some of the gear you've got access to so I don't have to fight the sonic issues, my time will be ... um... forever? :lol: In the meantime, I got stuff I need to work on.

I DO appreciate/understand the qualities that good gear - analog or otherwise can impart to a sound. There are things I simply won't attempt ITB and will leave to the mastering stage and send out, but they're not mix elements so much as just quality, clarity, pleasurable sounds. As per your quote above, my mix issues aren't gear related, their dik related. :D I still got shit to learn. Lots and lots.

dik

[Charles Dye]

You can't find a post from me anywhere on the internet EVER trying to convince anyone that DAW mixing is the way to go.

I mix how I mix + I share that process with others, so they may be able to learn from it. If that's DAW evangelism, then it's extremely passive.

OTOH, I don't understand the need to rationalize why you do NOT mix in a DAW. You mix how you mix + quite simply that's it. Analog kicks ass + you will also never, EVER find a post from me dissing it.



But... if you want to rationalize that printing to analog tape is faster for you than it takes me to instantiate a plug. Cool for you.

But you're dead wrong.

[Charles Dye]

So yeah, SONIC hoops are a problem. And for whatever reason, in the digital world, I have to work much harder to put a sonic landscape together.

But it appears because you "have to work much harder to put a sonic landscape together [in digital]", that you believe I do as well.

It just ain't that difficult. Seriously.

[Mixerman]

But it appears because you "have to work much harder to put a sonic landscape together [in digital]", that you believe I do as well.

It just ain't that difficult. Seriously.

No, I believe you have a different criteria for what makes your life easier when mixing. And I believe you have accepted one trade-off for other percieved advantages. Like the total and nearly instantaneous recall functions mentioned by Kenny.

If you mixed the same song (even a rough mix) through console with a 2" machine, and ITB, you would quickly realize and understand the "hoops" of which I am speaking.

Unfortunately, people seem to take my term "hoops" as some sort of diss. That is simply not the case.

I have stated on many occasions how people choose their gear. We all pick our gear based on what makes our life easier. If you and I have different criteria on what makes our life easier, then you and I are going to choose different gear. You're arguing purely from a results-based perspective. but I am making the case that if your life is easier, your results will improve.

In mixing analog, I too have to jump through hoops. For instance, I have to wait for the machine to rewind. But for me that's a good thing. Those short ear breaks make a big difference. And sure, I could force them when mixing from PT. But who has that kind of discipline? Do you actually wait 10 seconds every time you need to go back a verse?

Then there is the hoop of recall. If I don't get the mix right, recalls are a bit of a pain in the ass. Not so much 10 years ago, but definitely today with the way assistants tend to be. Or as Kenny pointed out, his ability to go back to his mix at each stage of the overdub process. But for me, bringing up the mix over and over again helps me as a producer. It offers some randomness in arrangement as I bring up the faders. It allows me to reacquaint myself with what I have. It gives me an opportunity to play with the balances, whicch helps me determine what is needed in the arrangement. The fact that recalls during mixdown are a pain in the ass makes my life easier as well. I don't have bands disappearing on me, and then asking me for tweaks after I'm done mixing the song. I can make bands stick around, and we can hash out the tweaks, and I can get them to sign off on decisions. You see, I like to get on a song, mix it, and get off of it forever amen. I can't stand the tweaking syndrome that people have today. Make your work. Go with your work. Be proud of your work.

So one man's hoops, are another man's tools. In the grand scheme of things, you can work any way you like, and I get that. You are choosing what matters to you in the process, and you have determined what parts of the process you can use to your advantage. Just as I have. That's why we have taken different paths in our working methods. You the path of darkness and evil, and I the path of lightness and good. We're like yin and yang.

In regards to the sonic landscape, my point is this: there is definitely a hoop where building a sonic landscape is concerned digitally vs. analog. The shit just doesn't go together as well when played off a digital source. Does that mean you can't make a great mix? No. But it's a hoop. And it's a hoop that I am particularly sensitive to. Just because you aren't, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like I said, you find other things more important where making your life easy is concerned. And frankly, it's entirely possible you've forgotten, which is not a diss on you, it's just what happens when you stick to one working method. I've forgotton what it's like to mix without an SSL compressor strapped to the 2-buss. Can't even imagine what it would be like because it is so much a part of my working method.

Anyway, if I were to give you a song on 2" to mix through a console. And the same song on Pro Tools to mix ITB (hell even through the same console), you would notice a huge difference in how quickly you were able to actually get the static mix pumping in a way that pleases you.

Mixerman

[Charles Dye]

No, I believe you have a different criteria for what makes your life easier when mixing. And I believe you have accepted one trade-off for other percieved advantages. Like the total and nearly instantaneous recall functions mentioned by Kenny.

If you mixed the same song (even a rough mix) through console with a 2" machine, and ITB, you would quickly realize and understand the "hoops" of which I am speaking.

Unfortunately, people seem to take my term "hoops" as some sort of diss. That is simply not the case.

I have stated on many occasions how people choose their gear. We all pick our gear based on what makes our life easier. If you and I have different criteria on what makes our life easier, then you and I are going to choose different gear. You're arguing purely from a results-based perspective. but I am making the case that if your life is easier, your results will improve.

In mixing analog, I too have to jump through hoops. For instance, I have to wait for the machine to rewind. But for me that's a good thing. Those short ear breaks make a big difference. And sure, I could force them when mixing from PT. But who has that kind of discipline? Do you actually wait 10 seconds every time you need to go back a verse?

Then there is the hoop of recall. If I don't get the mix right, recalls are a bit of a pain in the ass. Not so much 10 years ago, but definitely today with the way assistants tend to be. Or as Kenny pointed out, his ability to go back to his mix at each stage of the overdub process. But for me, bringing up the mix over and over again helps me as a producer. It offers some randomness in arrangement as I bring up the faders. It allows me to reacquaint myself with what I have. It gives me an opportunity to play with the balances, whicch helps me determine what is needed in the arrangement. The fact that recalls during mixdown are a pain in the ass makes my life easier as well. I don't have bands disappearing on me, and then asking me for tweaks after I'm done mixing the song. I can make bands stick around, and we can hash out the tweaks, and I can get them to sign off on decisions. You see, I like to get on a song, mix it, and get off of it forever amen. I can't stand the tweaking syndrome that people have today. Make your work. Go with your work. Be proud of your work.

So one man's hoops, are another man's tools. In the grand scheme of things, you can work any way you like, and I get that. You are choosing what matters to you in the process, and you have determined what parts of the process you can use to your advantage. Just as I have. That's why we have taken different paths in our working methods. You the path of darkness and evil, and I the path of lightness and good. We're like yin and yang.

Allow me to repeat myself...

I don't understand the need to rationalize why you do NOT mix in a DAW. You mix how you mix + quite simply that's it.

Your gonna rationalize yourself into a hole in the ground, son. Stop while your ahead.

We each got our axe. EOS.

In regards to the sonic landscape, my point is this: there is definitely a hoop where building a sonic landscape is concerned digitally vs. analog. The shit just doesn't go together as well when played off a digital source. Does that mean you can't make a great mix? No. But it's a hoop. And it's a hoop that I am particularly sensitive to. Just because you aren't, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like I said, you find other things more important where making your life easy is concerned. And frankly, it's entirely possible you've forgotten, which is not a diss on you, it's just what happens when you stick to one working method. I've forgotton what it's like to mix without an SSL compressor strapped to the 2-buss. Can't even imagine what it would be like because it is so much a part of my working method.

Anyway, if I were to give you a song on 2" to mix through a console. And the same song on Pro Tools to mix ITB (hell even through the same console), you would notice a huge difference in how quickly you were able to actually get the static mix pumping in a way that pleases you.

You can say this as many times + as long winded as ya like, but you're gonna be wrong everytime.

To be very clear... the above statement may very well be true for you, but it is absolutely not true for me, or many other very talented + successful engineers who get amazing sounding, genre-defining rock, pop + hip hop mixes all ITB every single day.

I can make plugz + a DAW pump + kick like a mother fugger. And so could you if you were willing to suffer the learning curve.

[chrisj]

In regards to the sonic landscape, my point is this: there is definitely a hoop where building a sonic landscape is concerned digitally vs. analog. The shit just doesn't go together as well when played off a digital source. Does that mean you can't make a great mix? No. But it's a hoop. And it's a hoop that I am particularly sensitive to.

Here's another angle. I have some reason to believe- whether it's really truly utterly reproducible digitally yet, or not- that what you're hearing is the gelling effect of a lot of very subtle distortions, restrictions, highpasses, lowpasses etc. This is why your stuff sounds good straight off the fader, and stuff straight off the fader in a mathematically perfect DAW sounds like ass.

Is this not a preset?

Were Charles, or me, or anyone else to come up with plugin 'presets' that were always applied, no matter what the mix was, wouldn't we be asking for a severe teasing about our habits? If we (and this isn't possible yet AFAIK) had 'presets' that really did mimic your console, would this be suddenly different just because the results always sounded a certain kind of good?

I think one of the problems is, it's HARD to apply extremely subtle colorings in this all-pervasive way, because if you listen to anything soloed it doesn't sound like you did anything. It's only when you hear the big picture that the effect becomes apparent.

[Mixerman]

I can make plugz + a DAW pump + kick like a mother fugger. And so could you if you were willing to suffer the learning curve.

The learning curve of how to quickly deal with the "hoops" I have to jump through.

I have to jump through hoops on a Neve VR too. Like, I pretty much have to cut 500-750hz on every channel to some degree because of the build up that board has in that range (except for the production model). They're still hoops.

Mixerman

[volthause]

Hoops are nice and round. They remind me of pie.


Mmmmmm... who wants pie?

[Kenny Gioia]

So yes. We all have to jump through hoops.

We all choose which path makes us jump thru less hoops or at least less hoops that we hate.

Some people like some hoops. Others hate those same hoops.

Here's the problem for me.

I like to mix the record as I go. So I'm making decisions as I'm going.

Like a painter. I add and and add and sometimes subtract but I'm always working on that same medium.

It doesn't always work to change the medium at the end and get a better painting.

Sometimes you're forced to start and do most of your painting on plain paper. Maybe you preferred a nice thick canvas but couldn't afford to pay to use that canvas for the entire painting process.

This painting will take you 2 months to do. You can only afford to paint on the good canvas for 3 weeks. You could rush it, but why? People will be looking at your art. Not the canvas.

Anyone can use canvas. It's not a unique medium.

So you use this paper and spend the 2 months that it takes to do the painting right. You have to adjust your paint, paint style and brush thickness to adjust to using plain paper but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Just different. And again, it allows you the time to get your vision correct.

And you can't just transfer it to canvas at the end. It may not work. You made it work on paper and that may be the only place it really works. Canvas transfers may open a whole new can of worms.

So when you learn this craft of tracking ITB, it can really make sense to mix there too.

I can usually afford to mix on a real board but I choose not to. I tracked it ITB and I know it works there.

What I can't afford to do is track and mix a full record on a big board. I have no desire to own one of those for my studio (never never never) and if I pay to rent out someone else's, I will be forced to cut corners in the production.

That is not acceptable IMHO.

[Comte de St Germain]

Kenny alluded to something that rings true for me: The fact that mixing ITB starts at the top of the project. No, not just "mix as you go" stuff but rather, mix by using the mics, the analog comps and eqs on the way in type stuff.

2" and digital require a different approach from the get go.

By taking the appropriate approach, much less processiong is required later.

[CaptainHook]

At the risk of being kicked off the forum...

MM gets results he's happy with, working with his methods.
Charles is the same.

Has anyone ever agreed on the same set of tools for a job
for anything, ever?
Probably, but...

We get it.. MOVING ON.

This talk about recording medium is borderline gearslutz
arguing. I thought i had left that behind.

Mixie, i know i and a 'few' others would be stoked if you could
use some of your time and energy that you're putting into these
posts, and instead put them into some posts regarding how
you went about mixing the radio show theme mix. :Thumbsup:

Of course if i were you, i'd tell me to fuck off and i'll do what
i want, when i fucking want so... YMMV. ;)

Good day to you all. :)

[matt allison]

“Limitations breed ingenuity”

I think there are limitations (or hoops as they are referred to here) from both camps (being ITB vs OTB) and they will be QUITE different. Through these limitations we tend to hone our crafts and get better at using them to our advantage.

I resonate with many of the quotes from both camps that have come up in this thread and I am slowly carving my own path that suits MY needs and one that best helps me SERVE the music I'm working on, which I guess is common goal we ALL share.

For some that might be tracking to 2” inch tape and mixing on a large format analog console, for others it may be mixing in the box and using those tools to sculpt a record, both are valid methodologies and are perfectly valid and admirable.

I will say one concern I do have is the translatability of digital recording 20 years from now... 20 years from now one will be able to load up a tape and play it, if stored well it will play back it all it's glory, if not, odds are it will play with a little damage, wear, tear warbling etc. Heck we can even do it with recording from the 60's!

I wish the same could be said for digital, if a few bytes and bytes are out of alignment it is tickets.... a little worrying, but something that plagues not on AE's, but anyone who uses a computer... and that is not even covering the compatibility issues we may run into with older formats....

Cheers

Matt

[maccool]

...I will say one concern I do have is the translatability of digital recording 20 years from now... 20 years from now one will be able to load up a tape and play it, if stored well it will play back it all it's glory, if not, odds are it will play with a little damage, wear, tear warbling etc. Heck we can even do it with recording from the 60's!

I wish the same could be said for digital, if a few bytes and bytes are out of alignment it is tickets.... a little worrying, but something that plagues not on AE's, but anyone who uses a computer... and that is not even covering the compatibility issues we may run into with older formats....

Cheers

Matt

You're fishing for troubles there I think Matt. I agree that achivists these days must address the problem of keeping their data available to clients who's software and hardware technologies will change in the long term. The wav's, aiff's and mpeg's of today will doubtless be superceded at some point. But the data are data. I suggest that in a hundred years from now it would be technically simpler to extract those data from a by-then-obsolete DVD or hard-drive than to find or manufacture a machine to reproduce with the requisite fidelity an historic analogue tape.

In what condition would those media be, in a hundred years? Will an analogue or digital tape outlast a hard-drive platter or an optical DVD? I don't know, but if I had to make a punt I'd go for the latter.

A phenomenal amount of music is being recorded today. Most of it is ephemeral, and most of it is dross. That which is worthy may survive the decades by existing in the distributed archive of the internet and multiple hard copies on CD and DVD. The really good bits will have their data moved to new formats and could remain broadly accessible for centuries. Much will be lost. But damnit Jim, that's life as we know it. Not everything in this field can or should survive. The planet is finite; our species' propensity to make and store rubbish is not. There will be survivors, and I hope it will be the good guys.

[myrtlebacker]

Somewhere in the middle to end of this interview, Malmsteen raps longishly about analog vs. digital and why close up cheese is no good, I suspect Mixerman would kinda like it :)

http://nettitv.mtv3.fi/uutiset/index.shtml/uutiset/uutiset/lisamateriaali?89209

[Charles Dye]

Charles may require 4 billion plugins...

That's such an exageration. I don't think I've ever used more than 2 billion. :Coolio:

[Charles Dye]

This talk about recording medium is borderline gearslutz arguing. I thought i had left that behind.

Ain't it the effin truth.













New Topic...



What's the best mic pre for under... ?

[dwoz]

I will say one concern I do have is the translatability of digital recording 20 years from now... 20 years from now one will be able to load up a tape and play it, if stored well it will play back it all it's glory, if not, odds are it will play with a little damage, wear, tear warbling etc. Heck we can even do it with recording from the 60's!

I wish the same could be said for digital, if a few bytes and bytes are out of alignment it is tickets.... a little worrying, but something that plagues not on AE's, but anyone who uses a computer... and that is not even covering the compatibility issues we may run into with older formats....

Cheers

Matt

ummm......no.


that's an "unequivocable" no. On all counts.


Old tape generally requires something called "forensics" to get usable material from it.

You have an unfounded concern as to the "fragility" of digital material. CDs are burned with something called "Cyclic Redundancy Code", which basically means that any single byte of information actually occurs two or three times on the disc.

Anyway, that's a whole big can 'o worms. You can't make such sweeping generalizations. Whatever advantages tape may have over digital, archival integrity ISN'T ONE OF THEM.

dwoz

[Goes211]

5 NEW EPISODES UP !!!
:Coolio:

[malice]

I love the delay/rev on Dick voice ... :D

malice

[ajcamlet]

jesus christ. i wasn't lying when i said we were hammered......

[Jason Phair]

Can someone do some halfway decent postwork on these clips and bring that fucking music down? I'm getting KILLED by it after I turn up the interviews.


Let's get rid of these dynamics, please. It's killing me.

[Mitch]

Yeah! Who the hell did the postwork on that?? Maybe he should read the posts on here to learn a thing or two about audio!!!

hehe

[Goes211]

Can someone do some halfway decent postwork on these clips and bring that fucking music down? I'm getting KILLED by it after I turn up the interviews.


Let's get rid of these dynamics, please. It's killing me.

It's just fine on 'puter speakers. Nobody said you had to listen to this pumped through a goddamn 4x12.

There is also the option of NOT listening to FREE stuff that kills you. Aren't you being a tad ungrateful here ?

[malice]

Can someone do some halfway decent postwork on these clips and bring that fucking music down? I'm getting KILLED by it after I turn up the interviews.


Let's get rid of these dynamics, please. It's killing me.

Funny, it did not struck me as being overly loud compared to the talk show.

I may add that the quality of the mixing improved compared to the first five episode.

It was not perfectly recorded, far from it, but it was reasonably mixed this time.

Guys, have in mind that this stuf takes time to fix, and it's not like we're geting any money to produce it properly.

I'm sure technical quality will improve over time.


:Wink:

malice

[Mitch]

I was kidding Malice... :Wink:

[malice]

aaaah,

sorry then,

damn, it must be the garlic snails

:D

malice

[Jason Phair]

It's just fine on 'puter speakers. Nobody said you had to listen to this pumped through a goddamn 4x12.

There is also the option of NOT listening to FREE stuff that kills you. Aren't you being a tad ungrateful here ?



Facetious is more like it :Wink:

[Goes211]

Facetious is more like it :Wink:

WTF ? You mean irony ?
:lol:

[srvenable]

Can't wait to hear 'em.

I'd listen to them now, but my daughter's sitting next to me and she's repeating words now...

[Mitch]

Any chance the radio show will be available as a regular podcast sometime in the future?
My apologies if this was mentionned already :Wink:
Cheers,
Mitch

[Goes211]

Any chance the radio show will be available as a regular podcast sometime in the future?
My apologies if this was mentionned already :Wink:
Cheers,
Mitch

But it IS a regular podcast ! :Wink:

[seagate]

But it IS a regular podcast ! :Wink:

weekly or monthly?

:lol:

[Tim Halligan]

weekly or monthly?

:lol:


Randomly. :lol:


Or, if you prefer, wheneverly :D


Who says English is a dead language?


Cheers,
Tim

[seagate]

more like rarely...

[bunnerabb]

Calvin?

Glory Glory, Hallelujah?

I almost pissed my pants laughing.

My face hurts.. you fucks! oh, shit, BWAAAHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh, motherfucker.

Oh..

wooo

shit..

Ow.

[bunnerabb]

I have a few ideas for the next few shows:

:)

Slippy reads some excerpts from his soon-to-be-released book; "Bands Suck! - The Gospel According to St. Bastard".

You actually let Kenny say something.

Aardvark does the whole show in a non-descript, Eastern EU accent.

Hans continues to announce the show as "The Mixerman Radio show, starring Slipperman and Aardfart".

Somebody gooses the smooth-voiced announcer lady in mid- VO and you print it.

This week's roundtable: "How M-box changed my shit up, for real, tho".

Kenny breaks down and admits that all real records are mixed OTB.

Mixerman gets slipped a mickey and you mic him as he talks in his sleep.



You can't get program direction like this just any old wheres!

Obviously.

:D

[AndyP]

Thank you very much.
I quite enjoyed that.
:Coolio:

[maccool]

SUPERB!

Excellent work Tim, and VERY funny. That one's in my iTunes library.

Many Rep points should be awarded for that.

[David Aurora]

OK, what the fuck???? I'm going through a bunch of the MM radio shows.


How the fuck did I get the rep as the guy who says "fuck" all the time???


Slippy, you have a foul fucking mouth. Fuck.


NOW FINISH THE FUCKING BILLY FLUTEY STORY!

[Brendo]

NOW FINISH THE FUCKING BILLY FLUTEY STORY!

he did, in one of his mp3 guitar rants.

[David Aurora]

he did, in one of his mp3 guitar rants.

FUCK, WHICH ONE??!!!!

ive been hanging by the balls since the fucking recpit!

[TSTW]

I have a few ideas for the next few shows:

:)

Slippy reads some excerpts from his soon-to-be-released book; "Bands Suck! - The Gospel According to St. Bastard".

You actually let Kenny say something.

Aardvark does the whole show in a non-descript, Eastern EU accent.

Hans continues to announce the show as "The Mixerman Radio show, starring Slipperman and Aardfart".

Somebody gooses the smooth-voiced announcer lady in mid- VO and you print it.

This week's roundtable: "How M-box changed my shit up, for real, tho".

Kenny breaks down and admits that all real records are mixed OTB.

Mixerman gets slipped a mickey and you mic him as he talks in his sleep



You can't get program direction like this just any old wheres!

Obviously.

:D

:lol: :lol: