As an engineer for 50 years I find part of the fun of mixing is the tactile nature of actually moving faders by hand. It feels more involving, much the same as every car I've owned is a manual transmission.
Absolutely! It's pretty annoying moving a virtual knob on the screen with a mouse :O And setting the Garageband faders, cause damage to ligaments, LED screen hurts my eyes and damages my sight
Not useless just incompetent when driving the mountains here in the Far East. 😂 My mixer gets relegated to outputs and are fixed. But boy would I love twisting knobs and moving faders over groping mouse. The RME dial is a good start and I use it lots. I'd love a lot though...
thanks for the awesome videos!! I did a audio engineering course way back in 2008 when I finished high school. I ended up becoming a music teacher. Only recently have I started to relearn most of these things. It is amazing how much technology has changed in just 10-15 years...also crazy how fast we get old and time flies...It is thanks to channels like yours that keeps knowledge alive and keeping up with the latest products but it also reminds me to remember where we all started.
I’ve been making recordings since the 70’s. Working strictly in the box exhausts me after three hours of scrolling through screen after screen and plugin after plugin. I can’t go on at a certain point about 3 hours in. Working on an analog mixing console I lose track of time and can easily spend 10 hours on a session and still feel energized. I currently use a hybrid system with a API 16 channel mixing console.
I'm probably close to 3 times your age and likely to have a massively larger knowledge base then you have HOWEVER, I really love your videos. I love the clean and direct way you present information. You're always very well balanced in your way of suggesting value and issues pro/con, as in this video. In fact, its rare that I have ever found anything to disagree with you on. I watch your videos for several reasons but honestly, it's to save me time teaching other people things I have no patience to teach lol. I send them to your channel. You've saved me a lot of headaches and I owe you a thanks. I opened my first studio to the public in 1987. It was open a year before that for my own use and I started recording in the A rooms in Los Angeles all the way back in 1978. I'm pretty experienced... and you have my respect. Thank you
I use an analog console and a lot of analog gear just because it’s right for me. I still feel I get more vibe in this process. I’ll usually add all my tracks on the console, do all my analog processing, then print that process back in the DAW. Then I’ll do automation and some plug in work to blend everything together. If the client needs changes, that can be done in the DAW.
Most modern music is stripped down.. Have you mixed projects similar to Michael's "Off The Wall" or Steely Dan's "Aja" ? I'm talking mixes with lot's of elements like live brass sections, 30 piece live orchestra plus a rhythm section with multiple overdubs and 48 to 64 tracks of vocals ? 😂.. Getting pristine mixes with all of those elements with the same depth and detail as the great mixes of Bruce Swedien are on another level compared to 90% of stuff I hear today ..
@@XVIIIPRO Agreed - but I think the op amps and electronics of high end consoles impart a sonic characteristic that's pleasing to our ears .. I've listened to vocals put through a Warm Audio hardware compressor that sounded better than any plugin compressor that I've heard ! I know that pro mixes done with the best audio gear available today will sound good in the box as well but I can only compare in the box mixes to watching 1080p video and top quality analog mixes to watching 4k or 8k.. there's a depth and detail that I don't hear when listening to in the box mixes.. The exception is if you have a genius audio engineer who's familiar with old school mixing techniques and knows how to compensate for the sonic differences ... at least to my ear 😂
nothing beats having a tactile analog EQ on every channel. The EQ in a decent analog mixer beats anything I've found in software and forces me to use my ears. Maybe it's the filters or amplifiers or the frequency knobs on them, idk, but it sounds amazing. I pipe my MPC Live 2 through an analog mixer from the early 90s with 16 channels, by using a class compliant USB audio interface creating 10 outputs going into the mixer. For mixdown, I pipe 8 mixer outputs (2 master + 6 subgroups) into my DAW using another audio interface, from which I monitor everything. One groups for drums, bass, etc. Each of those groups is a track in Ableton for recording/bus FX. It's completely changed how I make music since I try to as much as possible on my MPC because I'm completely unproductive in a DAW (too much choice, too much distraction). I also love physical faders and recording them live, instead of less musical automation. Makes it a performance. Routing outboard audio effects via inserts or via subgroups and sending groups of channels to aux to a reverb for ex, is extremely useful, the mixer is a better user interface than DAWs as it's easier to keep track of everything going on. I use DAWs only for mastering/bus chain software FX (tweaked live, not just after printing stems) and final arrangement.
I need a mixer in MY studio! I’ve been mixing music since the mid-1960’s, and, and the “In Tbe Box” method just doesn’t cut it for me! I NEED a bevy of controls for the mics and the guitar channels, since I can easily get to things like EQ and effects without having to get into the 15th sub-menu page just to get EQ while tracking. My console is a 32-channel Toft, connected to a Studio Mac running Digital Performer, and a raft of plug-ins. The upshot of this is simple - I can I can and have recorded and mixed essentially ANYTHING in my studio, from a three-piece rock band to a full symphony orchestra. This console is a great grandson of the consoles built expressly by and for Malcolm Toft’s studios, which he built in London’s West End, and it sounds MAGNIFICENT!
Why I love my studiolive series iii. Clean pres , can monitor with effects but record pre the fx on a per channel basis. Automation controller. Got outboard gear hooked up through it permanently. Talkback and a avb network for stageboxs in other rooms. Plus individual monitoring controls a user can adjust to taste. Problem solver.
That sounds nice, I'm too poor to own that so I fake it with an big analog one and audio interfaces :) How do handle inserts? I looked at a picture and dont see any
@@daniel_dumile I’m a blue collar poor working guy. I made sacrifices for what little I have. Ain’t no shame in this man. A analog mixer and interfaces is all good. I use to run a cheap analog mixer into interfaces back in the day. Mostly to run vocals into cheap hardware before the interface.
I strongly suggest getting that tactile control surface, it lets you get the best of both worlds. You keep all the recall possibilities, all the automation, etc, but also can use the tactile operation of 'real' faders, the speed of operation of a physical mixing console, and you can get an overview of all important parameters during mixing at a glance. The market for those has somewhat exploded, and you can get them in a very wide range of price points and quality levels. The most important things to pay attention to is the accuracy of the faders, how easy it is to use multiple fader banks, how expandable they are (many allow you to add expansion controllers, which lack the main 'DAW control' buttons and jog shuttle, just add more faders and 'channel' buttons and dials), and of course, the faders being motorized, because without that, you don't get the 'at a glance' overview. Seeing a control surface follow the automation you setup can be quite fascinating, but also provides very good feedback on that automation. It really gets you the best of both worlds, while usually requiring a lot less space than a full sized traditional mixing console.
Ugh I tried those control surfaces and dealing with midi assignment is such a PIA. I just like the simplicity of a mixer. That comes with lots of cable management but I find that far more intuitive and easier to reason with than assigning knobs to every parameter then getting a new controller and starting all over gain cuz the last one sucked. Unless there's direct one-to-one connection between the controller and the DAW I'm not interested. We need iphone type vertical integration.
I have a Qcon Pro X controller surface, I got it so I wouldn’t have to look at the screen for as long while mixing. I usually use it when I’m mixing a lot of songs
@@daniel_dumile I use ableton live, have the controller ser to mackie protocol, from there it is plug and play. Ableton recognizes the controller and all works out of the box.
I know the way we record music is changing and change is good. But I have to say that ole analog sound of a mixing desk with the outboard processing gear is where it is for me. Digital just can't mimic that no matter how many plugins you use.
Nicely stated man! All of the great 70s rock and country music and 80s heavy metal and 80s M tv synth pop was recorded on 24 track reel to reel and processed thru an analog desk, with tube compressors and analog rack effects. Digital software can't match that 👍
Very well explained! I started out as maintenance engineer in a studio called Mayfair (London) and we had a Neve VR, an SSL9000K, an Amek big, an EMI TG12345 console.. running a session was a very expensive process, these days I mainly work ITB and bounce my effects back into the session. This allows me to stay fresh and enjoy working on a mix knowing I can recall it instantly at any moment in time. But that is my workflow…
I grew up on tape & consoles. I came into the digital realm, kicking & screaming . . . . However, once I got here . . . I haven't touched a console in YEARS. Have a 16 ch interface & love it.
One of the biggest drawbacks of working in the box is that (without having a means of summing channels together) put each mic on a separate track instead of creating stereo pairs of parts that are heard in stereo in the final mix. Doing this means that you have to use your ears and have an overall sonic goal in mind when you start recording. So many of those who work fully 'in the box' are not 'en-gin-ears', but 'en-gin-eyes' who use visual feedback more than aural feedback. Creativity tends to get exercised more when there are restraints placed on the one creating. With tape, you were forced to think about the end product up front. In the early days of two track recording, engineers learned how to blend instruments in a room together, select mics for their overall sonic quality, and make sonic decisions up front. These engineers were the ones who most always cut fat, monster tracks, and also mixed well because they learned their art and craft in the days of barebones technology... before automation made things 'easier'. Does one need a console in today's in-the-box environment? Yes and no! If you're making music by yourself, not really. However, if you're any form of commercial facility, having a console gives you a central point of workflow. There are some very affordable consoles around now, especially given that the market has shifted to demanding more affordable gear. Used consoles are also available at an even MORE affordable price point... many of which have already been updated with new switches and have been re-capped so that they work just as if they were new. From there it all boils down to your power bill and the space available for your studio. For both tracking and mixing, a console can speed up your recording process and make it easier to get the sounds that you're already hearing. Just my two cents worth after working in both environments and listening to what a lot of individuals have to say. In the end, it's all up to you! Use your ears!!!
I use and need a mixing console. But I got rid of my computer recording setup and got a Stephens 821b two inch 24 track and the only way to practically mix without a computer is with a mixing console. Latency is very noticeable to a singer even with fairly low latency in the form of comb filtering. Recall is a bit of a pain in the backside, fader automation can be a lifesaver if you have a console with it. The Stephens has been quite reliable but it is a good idea to either learn to fix it, or know a technician that learns how to fix that particular machine.
Always love your videos, great job. For me, I will never go back to life without a console because for my specific work flow, it makes everything so much easier. My studio primarily records live bands with a focus on live drums, and I primarily work with local bands who want real drums on their album but don't have the gear to do so, or the cash to rent out one of the big studios in town. Tracking bass, guitar and vocals has become pretty easy for most bands to do at home, or in their rehearsal spaces. But a full kit, that's still a challenge. Routing, and the amount of money a console can save is why I love them. Like I said, I track drums a lot. It's not uncommon for me to put 20 mics up during a drum tracking session. For a long time, I tracked everything directly into the DAW. So after tracking drums, my DAW had 20 individual tracks in it. Many of these tracks are meant to be summed together, like the mics on the top and bottom of the snare, or the multiple mics on the kick drum etc. With a console, I can rout them through a Bus on the console with the push of a button, and send the summed signal to the DAW. This makes it very easy to funnel down those 20 channels to just 5 or 6 channels to work with in the DAW. Making editing, and mixing so much easier. Typically I'll send all the overhead mics to a stereo bus and into the DAW on a stereo channel. Same with the tom mics, the room mics also get their own. Then a mono bus for kick, and one for snare. Consoles also save you a ton of money if you are tracking live drums and live bands. I think most people associate the word mixing console with $100,000 Neve, API, or SSL consoles. And, yes, those would be cool. But lets face it, if you're watching this video, you probably don't have the budget for one of those. You can get a 24 channel, split line console from Trident or Audient for like $22,000. That's still a ton of money, but compare that to buy 24 outboard mic preamps with EQ. Even better, the late 80s and early 90s saw a huge home studio/project studio revolution and many companies made mixing consoles for this market. Great sounding, incredibly functional mixing consoles that now go used for dirt cheap. Brands like Sound Craft, and Mackie (among others) made smaller format mixing consoles anywhere from 16 to 32 tracks. I used to have a Mackie 8bus console, and it worked great. 16 split line inputs (meaning you can use the same channel for input and output. Tracking and mixing) with 8 busses, a series of Aux sends ect. I bought that used for $200. Just a few weeks ago I found a Sound Craft series TWO with 24 tracks, 8 busses, 8 Aux sends etc for $350. If you're just starting out recording drums, there's already enough gear you need to buy in the form of microphone, cables, and stands. Instead of spending a ton more money on an interface that can support 16 or 24 or 32 inputs, plus buying all the outboard preamps to populate those inputs, you can buy a much more reasonably priced 8 input interface and a console.
hybrid all the way for me...I'm just about to get my hands on a souncraft spirit studio...I started with older yamaha mg series16 and 12 subbed together. I like the anaolgue summing and feel...mostly the fun of messing with gear.,..gives me the greatest joy of all..its just a hobby for me.
This is so good man. As someone who is self taught and has straddled both the analog and digital this is incredibly well explained and gives me ideas on how to do hybrid environment (given that I don't want to totally give up on the tactile nature of faders and knobs). Thanks!
I do an awful lot of Big Band work. Sometimes I do Groups with two Drummers. I'll be damned if I'm going to screw around with a room full of outboard mic preamps. The workflow on a console is so much faster. I'm rarely afforded the time to mess around. Of course I record to and mix in Pro Tools, but a Console on the front end is a must.
Hmmmm its been more than 30 yrs since ive heard or come across an ssl board. I just heard a recording done at home with just a computer and mike and was blown away by how clean and clear it sounded. So even though an all digitized recording may sound a little harsh there are ways to make it sound warm. So in my book those boards maybe a thing of the past. BTW Im 62
im a 29 yo studio baby been inside the control room since birth, writing this comment in one now , ( I live in my studio) if your record ACTUAL MUSIC . you need a BOARD. (Aka console) my Allen and heath 32 channel is amazing (analog/digital) , I currently use this as my interface and can double as a daw controller. nothing super huge and heavy, NO LATENCY , talkback is obviously EASY. and of course the analog warmth going into the daw. and patching rack inserts is seamless. I think you should be mixing in the box, but a real studio engineer should have some form of a console to basically be the brain or conductor of the studio. almost like a transit hub station all things start and end there and route your sound to where ever it needs to go.
you forgot to add how beneficial an analog console is for getting new clients. I see many studios just using the console to get people in the door, and they don't actually use the gear. I'm wondering if there is any research done on this subject?
Hehe, I do not run a professional studio, through I do some payed for recording in my home studio. People were indeed way more impressed by the old, and no longer used, analog mixing console I have around than by the much more capable digital audio workstation. Adding a nice control surface with motorized faders etc did change that tho, those can look really impressive to lay people 🙂
I've been on the mixer for 33 years now, both studio and live. In studio i use both methods, analogue and digital. I use RME as well, as in my opinion (according to my ears - others can have different opinions) it's the most linear (characterless) interface on the market. In one of your slides you shown a neve consolle going to a studer multitrack tape recorder, and that's the gear i used for a long time. Funny enough, since old studers are very sensitive and delicate machines and spare parts are not easy to come by, when it became "less usable" the neve basically became the preamp going straight to the RMEs. Best of both worlds, so that the raw tracks are already good (I totally disagree with the "fix it in post" that most producers want, just to save on studio time). The debate of what's best between digital and analogue doesn't interest me much. I believe all depends on who's using it. Real audio engineers should be able to use all techniques, because the target is the same, and that is good sound. Unfortunately nowadays many "young graduates" think that top level gear automatically can make them great. Anyway, your content is good and topics clearly explained, I often suggest it to people still learning. Have a good day.
I tend to do a lot of solo one-take recordings with several synths, so a mixer is nice because I don’t even have to open the DAW until I’m finally ready to record. I’ve also learned how to set up a good mix quickly with a few simple controls.
Great thoughts but missed one option . . . the hybrid of using a control surface with a DAW. Doing so keeps the best of both worlds of both the board and box. The ability to "using the board as a performance piece" is super nice as it engages the engineer more into supple musical details by allowing the ability to do rides and changes on the fly. It still allows the ability to save session settings, including the ride changes and effects processing so that the tedious need to write session settings down. If you have the budget and the artistic inclination to engage the mix more, then a control surface / DAW mix is an option.
I'm equally comfortable with both workflows, but prefer a console for tracking. EDIT: I've also done some live outdoor theater stuff and prefer a mixer for that, too. Sometimes you need faster reaction than a mixer interface on a tablet (or worse, a mouse on a laptop) and the tactile sense to finely adjust controls by touch alone.
I honestly prefer using the console before it goes into the PC and prefer using the DAW program for mixing post. I also use tape. The thing that I do that's totally unconventional is if I use a multitrack deck, I only have 2 channels going into the computer. The way I get around that is I find a noise on the tape prior to the starting song and I use that as the reference and line all the tracks up using that noise. I got a lot of practice doing it that way and it's not as bad as it seems. The thing I like about the mixer is it has a parametric EQ so I can make the mids sound great. By also doing that, everything else is flat and sounds beautiful. Your ears are your best tools for this.
I personally prefer having a mixing console . I can't stand looking at a screen for extended periods of time. I like being able to physically make adjustments with knobs and faders. I also feel like there's more control when using aux sends. I still produce in the box sometimes, but I mostly have a hybrid work flow. I can also record totally analog with my 16 track tape machine which is what i been doing as of late. I have it all routed to go either way I choose. Analog, hybrid, or in the box. 😊
I have been a pro audio guy since 1987……shit I’m old…..buuuut, I grew up on tape and analog desks. Once I got into mixing in the box, I love the automation it was so much easier in the box. Nobody can deny the convenience of mixing in the box. However, the satisfaction of mixing on an analog desk is unsurpassed. It really connects you more to the music. Today I run a hybrid set up with a 56 ch Neve desk. I basically do all the normal edits in the DAW, but everything comes back up on the desk where it gets fader love and insert love from real 1176, LA2-a, Lexicon verbs and delays etc…. And all the patching can be done right on the desk as well as all of the monitor and control. So I don’t ‘need’ extra patchbays If I hardwire, right to the same inserts, all the time. All of the monitor control functions like switching speakers, and input sources are built into the master section, including monitor switching, talkback, matrix and group mixing, group inserts of hardware etc 2 bus insert points. And even if people are tracking at different times, they sound all uniform because they’re coming for the same preamps and all of the same analog summing. And because I run a commercial recording studio, I get the ‘wow’ factor when people walk into the control room for the first time. Nobody has ever looked at my mouse and went ‘wow!’. I honestly believe it helps people feel like you’re more serious when they see a bunch of knobs in front of you. Because not everybody knows what they do. But everybody do you say is can run a computer so if all they see is a computer why wouldn’t they just bother doing some of that stuff themselves? Throwing a mixer up in front of you looks confusing and kind of like your superhero. I deal with national caliber Musicians literally every day and many of them have home studios and demo ITB. Yet they still come to me, because of what desk gives them. I know Some of the top mixing engineers are mixing all in the box these days. Good for them I know it can be done because the consuming public has never cared what equipment was used to record their favorite songs. They never have, and never will. But from a sales standpoint, having a mixing console is incredibly powerful if you want to be taken seriously. A large portion of my clients are other independent engineers That have their own studios, mostly at their homes. But they keep coming to me to run their clients through my stuff in my rooms. Because it helps their clients take them more seriously. So I guess in summary, I would say if you want to be taken seriously by people above you in the music community, get a mixer. If you only care about impressing your local friends or hip-hop artist that I need a vocal mic then don’t bother. But if you want to be a pro, you have to present what people expect to see when they’re paying you $700-$1000 a day. ‘“More modern tools” phrases like that insinuate that nobody is making mixing consoles any more.
I'm no expert at all on all this. Been creating for 3yrs now. No samples. I don't have any cool equipment. I use FL studio. And a M1 audio keyboard with a surround sound speaker. Lol. Now that's as cheap as it gets. But this video fully helped. So thanks for the info!!
Professionals and intermediate home music producers are all using software and computer interfaces such as Apogee and pro tools. I don't know how to use any of that, but Ive seen what it can do. But I tell you, I had a grand time in the 90s making demos for lots of bands that played all music styles with my tascam 238 Syn cassette 8 track recorder, my 90s mackie 1604vlz mixer, my 90s alesis midiverb, and my Shure sm57's!
sometimes seeing the price asked for some tremendous vintage mixers is confusing when you see what can be ask for an old and qwerky monimoog (just the faders on an old a&h or soundcraft mixer pre 85 i'de say, are worth being kept compared to what you can find on anything under 1k5 these days). form 500 bux/euros and a little driving you can find really nice deals for vintage mixer> Of course the use of a mixer the way music is done in nowadays with what's available isnt necessery, allthough i personally have been working in the realm of dub these last years, and here is a style where not havibg a proper mixer is out of question, but finding smaller "prosumer" vintage mixers like let's say a tapco can be usefull for "caracter" for a procucer, for someone working as a mix engineer... well i'de say it's more a matter of use and confort, in the realm of music production there are ones that do it all in the box, and others (like me i have to say) that want a bunch of sperate generators that take a bunch of exploitable physical space, i'm pretty shure for inmgineers there must be the same geezers... I'm taking care of modding my Allen & Heath studio mk2 (16/4/2 enough for producing and dub mixing of stems, in 2024 who need a hudge studio mixer right? lol), making all my fx sends postfade and thinking of getting opamps with higher spec (072 inside). As i'm on this topic these days i just wanted to share my view on the topic, a mixer is cool to have but it's heavy and takes a lot of space....
Good thorough video. Couple things..the versatility of being able to change the sound of your mix bus in a daw only setup is cool, but if you have a console that has a signature sound that you love, that's another point to consider maybe. Some people like NO color in their mix bus, other's love what an analog console brings in terms of sound, hence the zillions of console plugin emulations out there. They might get you close....it's a matter that's been debated a million and a half times online. I realize for the purpose of this video though, combined with the ambiguity of personal sound preference, this would have been a hard thing to cover. One other thing I learned though, while mixing using a DAW through an analog console is this: If you miss a cue? Presumably you're running your daw outputs into the console, and the console's mix output to a pair of converter inputs (providing it's a stereo mix). If you miss a cue, rewind, set a punch in locater, and punch in your two track mix, and redo your missed cue. No need to start all over. Also, take photos with your phone and put them in the session's folder of pics. No need for pencil and paper if you can clearly read the nomenclature in the photos. Been doing this since before phones could take photos with a digital camera. Besides, I'd probably use some notepad app, or just the notes section for each track in the DAW to write down the settings for the outboard and console for each track instead of pencil and paper. I mean, using a console doesn't mean going completely back to 1975. One last thing. If you have an analog console, and you have a daw? You can mix either way. If you feel like the console will sound better for a project, you can use it. If you want the sound of the DAW, just don't use the console. If all you have is a DAW, then you have but one choice... Thanks for the cool video!
I like giving headphone mixes a bit of compressor/limiter so the singer can really hear themselves and in turn they step back from the mic and avoid plosives.
I use a 32 channel digital mixer/audio interface. The main advantage is that I can connect up a bunch of mics and musicians will get headphone mixes at zero latency. Reverb is easily available to singers if they want in their headphones. When I have clients returning for more tracking, I have saved all their settings and literally by the flick of a finger, I am back where we left off! I wouldn’t swap it for anything else. Saves a lot of time and frustration.
I would like to first say that I track a lot of drums and I have found the best combination of plugins to get the coveted analog sound, I start with a simple mic setup toms snare 2 kick and one overhead and second overhead over the shoulder,and a small condenser for a room mic . Then I track through the voost EQ and mix most of everything with the Harrison 32 C all in reaper that I paid 60 for 10 years ago. I also use the scheps Omni with the C6 on the mix buss and sweet drums on the main drum buss . It brings incredible results. Cheers
I'm using the Midas m32 mixing consol. For me the right choise to have a 32 channel audio interface with channel strips, endless routing capabilities in seconds and a daw controller. I think digital mixing consols are great to size down the consols and to have the benefit to have the best of both worlds.
Nice to have, definitely. But I’ve long stopped using them and just use a highish end audio interface with 16channels. I also have a couple of boutique pre-amps for that ‘big desk’ sound on input. Sometimes the summing of a classic analogue desk is incredibly pleasing but modelled plugins sound great too.
Same in photography, it's a bad practice to rely on fixing in post. Capture the good stuff in analog(good lighting, appropriate Lens choice and aperture, shutter speed and iso), because these things is difficult to fix in post. Also in terms of devices, almost everything now have a cheaper alternative to produce the same output. However, expensive equipment will out-shine cheaper alternatives in dire environments, like poor lighting in photography, same with audio recording.
I came up mixing on SSL, Neotek, API consoles - straight off tape to 2-track. I started using ProTools for some things in 1994. Fast forward (ha) to today. I’m using Logic, Reaper, Ableton, Reason, and ProTools, all mixing in the box (with the occasional console-as-summing mix). Once in a while I’m pulling out my admittedly sparse hair re-registering plugins, dealing with OS updates, etc, but overall, the repeatability and the workflow in the box has been a boon and enabled dives into greater creativity. Just try to listen for the emotional content and don’t get seduced into mixing only with your eyes.
I like the way you present the information, thank you for all your videos. In a desert island scenario, I would choose digital for instantaneous recall.
I was recording directly to interface but with output, I’ve found having a desk a massive benefit, obviously it depends what you’re mixing but I felt what I was dealing with suited having the analog warmup and eq, also having the faders and being able to use the thing as another instrument feature has been gold. I have 36 in and 30 outs on my interface setup and so I put 16 channels in and out of a desk that’s 24 and use the other channels as backup as each strip in modular and can be swapped out. I found bouncing between both digital and analog tools really useful but also with the 16 track, I can record both digital and analogue 16 track simultaneously and if you really wanna hear the difference between the two, this is the way, and I can already guess which of the two you will prefer the sound of. Honestly v useful but also far more complicated and difficult to deal with. You need really good systems to manage
I think something that he missed was it’s all about what you do in the studio, if you spend all day every day with bands where you need to quickly put a mix together, a mixer is really good for that however, if you spend most of your time making beats and just recording separate instruments and vocals the mixer is wasted as you will be doing most of the mixing in the box. However this also depends on how the mixer is setup, if you’re just using the desk for tracking or mixing too.
Great video. Very related to me as we're moving studios and installing a 40 channel console in the new space. It'll be 32 in and out to the DAW. I've worked all different ways over the 35 + years I've been recording and creating music.
I still feel the need for a mixer. I don't have one, but soon. A good DAW controller is the Arturia mkii series. The 62 key suits my current needs. Also Ableton Push is a great option.
I love analog consoles for haptic feedback and IO bus outs into interface and sub out into 2 track tape. There is a color difference between console recording and direct recording and I prefer console. I also enjoy turning daw off and just mix outboard.
I enjoyed this video, Other than the RME commercials. There’s a lot to be said about analog mixing boards. The good quality ones such as the vintage Neve’s and SSL add character that is hard to correctly emulate with plugins. Their digital counterparts (plugins) have come close. Most good engineers that have used both could correctly identify their differences. The digital age has definitely simplified recording. I was fortunate to work in a studio that utilized a vintage SSL board and a 24 track tape machines. Of course, we had the option to record using the digital method as well. I believe both analog and digital recording methods have their advantages. IF I had the resources, I would have both including a quality tape machine. Thanks for mentioning processing during the recording process. It’s huge. It’s a very common practice that good engineers utilize and it does take skill to do properly.
Every studio I been to that works specifically in mixing and mastering either has a console or a bad ass multi summing solution with different flavors of outboard gear but at the end of the day just use what you have available and create your art
I would also emphasized on the fact that tape machines are limited in the number of tracks they can record so one would need to downmix all the input channels. DAWs are able to record as many channels as needed (basically the amount of interfaces available) so there is no need to mix all the inputs available on the interface(s) to a lower track count.
Love your channel but what you didn't mention is if you have analog modules running thru stereo on the analog mixer as well as other gear, a simple 8 channel interface will not suffice and you would need to expand your ADAT or Spdif connection, there are benefits to both I'm just not willing to give up all the analog gear in place of digit, I would love to see a comparison with an API 2448 console to a RME fireface UFX 3
At my school we had to use an AVID S6, which I felt was a good mix between analog and digital (not that I've ever used analog outside of live sound). I liked doing the basic rough mix entirely on the S6, and then refining it later in the box on my laptop
I operate my home studio out of a midas Mr18 and it is awesome! The preamps are very nice, and so is the ability to use it as an 18 channel interface. Even better though is all of those monitoring features, eq, gates, comp, reverb available on all channels to our in ears. It's also what we use live so we get to carry forward our settings. For anyone looking for the best bang for your buck for a rehearsal space, home studio, and live mixer you can't beat it!
If it's only about making easy, then one could get Neutron 5 etc, and have the job done lightning fast. I am more interested in sound quality results. I have a Studer 962 with 40 in and use 18 to 24 in to mix OTB with a Neve 33609 ( hardware) inserted on the PT Master out, then coming back from the Studer Master out to an aux bussed to a track in PT to print offline. I keep the fader on the board to -5db and sparingly use the eq for maximum repeatability. I feel that's the best sound i've had yet...
Great vid! Jumping off this though, I think something I wish I was taught better when I started a million years ago is managing redundancies in amateur, pro-am and pro contexts.
Good audio interface and any daw with stock plugins are good enough for tracking, mixing and mastering. It’s amazing what we can do these days for a few $$$
Another great informative video, as you have said the preference will mostly be based on which generation you experienced mixing equipment on. I personally think the Hybrid set up is the best of both worlds. Once thing you have not covered is the final mix of a recording. For example, Donald Fagan “The Night fly “or any of Steely Dan’s albums have a great sound. Morden music of today seems not to have detailed sound of each instrument and is very precise.
Definitely a mixing console or at least a control surface. Tactile feedback is important. You don\t want to drive a car or fly a plane with a mouse or a touchscreen. Right? I personally use the best of all worlds: digital mixing console, plugins and most of automation inside a DAW and some outboard gear. My typical mix has 1 to 5 channels of analog outboard. It doesn't take that much effort to write down the settings on an Excel sheet template which has a cell for all knobs of my every external processor.
Great video as always. Thank you. You mentioned you were investigating a control surface. I'm intrigued to know what your thoughts are about the current options available.
In the passt time recordinng on analog MT machine, the sound must to be in most timed ready to Mix, today i work both, in the Box digital and analoge 24 Track 2" with the SSL 4000G desk , i am over 60 and around 40 years Studio worker,
Long time watcher. Thanks for making great content. I noticed you had a Radial EXTC in your Cranborne R8. Are you able to use the send/receive via the back insert ports? I ask because I want to get the R8 and stick a pair of EXTCs in them without having to run the effects loop out of the front ports. That way I can run the back ports into my patchbay. Sweetwater says this cannot be done, but I suspect otherwise.
I haven’t actually used the inserts. I suspect they are not designed to be used with high-Z, instrument-level gear. That is a Cranborbe 500ADAT, but the same answer applies. The cables do get in the way. For this reason, I just use a Radial reamp box from my patch bay to my amps (because these are further away from the EXTC) and I use the EXTC for pedals.
@@AudioUniversity Thanks for the quick reply. I wondered about the impedance too, but I don't think the EXTC is strictly high Z for the FX loop, as some pedals work at line level too. If you ever test this out, please post and let us know. I've been eyeing this setup for awhile. Also, I think it's funny that you talk about mixing almost exclusively in the box yourself but the R8 gives you console like signal paths with whatever channel components you want, either for tracking or mixing. It's a super hybrid approach without the console/outboard space/cost and I'm surprised more people don't go this way.
Nice video. I have a big studio with great gear and sometime fancied an old analog mixer but the fact is , it’s not really needed at least not for my case . I do electronic music and rarely touch a microphone so all gear goes straight to the converters . When I need too beef up a synth or something else then I have a few channel strips that do the mixer job ( minus the hassle of the size and potencial breakdowns) . For the electronic music studio I think it’s not convenient . Now for a rock band or an orchestra or similar setups well you really need those mixers to make you work easy. However this is almost 2025 with fpg technology, greater computers 32 floating point , and awesome computers and converters and amazing vst I thing it’s just a matter or time until theses mixers become irrelevant.
Some great mixers on Kijiji etc for dirt cheap because people don't want them. Years ago I'd have dreamed of having one of them but now I'm just a bit sad that I have no need for a 24 channel mixer. It's simply not my kind of workflow any more. Multiple small mixers distributed round my studio better meet my needs.
Interesting! Personally, I only need a good sound recording device with 2 channels. Most of my recordings are either non musical sounds (mostly sound for videos) or on sometimes, live music (where the goal is to recreate the experience of being there as good as possible, not to do a mix). An external preamp is another thing though. Even some really good recorders or cameras (that perform well when recording line level signals) often have crap preamps in them. The problem is mostly noise. Even when using the line setting, if the recording level is adjustable, the SNR (the ratio between 0 dBfs and the average level of the noise floor) for most devices get better the lower the recording level is. So it's better to use an external good preamp and adjust the recording level by the gain, than adjusting the level in the recorder or camera. I have built my own preamp and have a DC/DC flyback converter in my design - so I can run conveniently on a single 18650 or 5V USB power (I use mine mostly as a portable device) and still supply the opamps in the reamp circuit, +/- 15 V (that way, the preamp will never clip before the recorder). In my particular case, I also use microphones that I have built my self from Primo EM273 capsules - and to get the best performance out of those (mainly when it comes to distortion at high SPL), they have to be powered up in an unconventional way with either a 3 lead configuration (which is the one shown in the data sheet), that has a separate power and signal lead - or a 2 lead configuration with negative voltage (unbalanced, with ground positive instead of negative) - which is the one I use, since it's more conveninent to be able to use small RCA connectors, when it's an unbalanced signal anyway. A voltage regulation circuit is also needed to get stable voltage to the capsules and lowest possible THD. This is against all normal standards, so I need a custom built preamp anyway.
Good stuff, thanks! RME Q: Should one care that the UFX series has Min (ASIO) buffer size 32 while the UCX has 48? When you get into the hard to find specs the UFX series look much better on paper.
Hi guys I rang a shop yesterday inquiring about an analog mixer and I found it weird that the guy instead of helping me to find what suited my needs , decided to bare on his poor knowledge and tell me that it’s more economical to work in the box. In my opinion working in the box totally is great for instruments that were well recorded in proper environments. Now saying that I mostly produce reggae and “world” music. So I’m trying to reduce my plugin footprint and adding “natural saturation “ from mic pres through my focusrite out to a mixer and back into my daw also there’s an eq and comp on each channel. So , I’m still looking for a recommendation on a 24 channel mixer under £1000 please tag me in any suggestions
problem with using a computer is you only have one pointer to work with. wheras on a board its "all right there." its also like super expensive. cause now you need cabling (which can cost more than the board itself), racks, etc etc . whereas on the computer its all free, as in $0 or nearly.
Interesting, my main use of a mixer desk is for live sound at a church. We almost went down the path of using a digital mixer, driven by an iPad etc (after our original mixed was stolen) I chose old school as things are technically simpler with no layers of functions that can be 'mucked up' by passing misguided 'helpers' One simple task often used is changing a few faders at the same time, as in fade out the band and bring up the priests mic, somthing rather impossible using a mouse on a computer. There is nothing like coming in on Sunday for a service only to find. the hard way, that some visiting funeral directors etc. have twiddled about every knob imaginable. No matter how thorough I am, there is always something I've missed. found in the most awkward of moments, mid service. (like swapping the input mic leads) aarrrggghhh
Always love the content! And I didn't know you used FL studio 😅... Unless you're an omni-daw man. Do you think a digital board with DAW remote would be the best of both worlds?
I don't disagree with any of your points but for me the distinction is simpler. If someone is a solo producer do it in the box. If someone works with others then hardware all the way.
I think those giant mixing consoles are a borderline marketing gimmick at this point. Look at any textbook on audio engineering from the AES or similar groups and they all have the obligatory mixing console on the cover. Nevermind that most enthusiasts will never use one and never need one. I've recorded bands, worked in radio, and currently work in audio preservation, and I've never needed a full studio mixing console. Analog is nice, but a 500 series setup should be enough for anyone who doesn't want to go digital.
As an engineer for 50 years I find part of the fun of mixing is the tactile nature of actually moving faders by hand. It feels more involving, much the same as every car I've owned is a manual transmission.
Hear hear! I feel so useless driving an automatic.
My people.
Absolutely! It's pretty annoying moving a virtual knob on the screen with a mouse :O And setting the Garageband faders, cause damage to ligaments, LED screen hurts my eyes and damages my sight
@@larslevinberget9558 +1, constant exposure to LED light is not good, especially when its from 10 miles of oncoming highway traffic.
Not useless just incompetent when driving the mountains here in the Far East. 😂 My mixer gets relegated to outputs and are fixed. But boy would I love twisting knobs and moving faders over groping mouse. The RME dial is a good start and I use it lots. I'd love a lot though...
Spot on. All boils down to preference, needs, and opinion of sound output.
Yes a pretty er... balanced assessment.
thanks for the awesome videos!! I did a audio engineering course way back in 2008 when I finished high school. I ended up becoming a music teacher. Only recently have I started to relearn most of these things. It is amazing how much technology has changed in just 10-15 years...also crazy how fast we get old and time flies...It is thanks to channels like yours that keeps knowledge alive and keeping up with the latest products but it also reminds me to remember where we all started.
I've just gotta says, thanks for all this awesome educational content man!
Glad you like it!
@@AudioUniversityfor real, thank you! 🤘
I’ve been making recordings since the 70’s. Working strictly in the box exhausts me after three hours of scrolling through screen after screen and plugin after plugin. I can’t go on at a certain point about 3 hours in.
Working on an analog mixing console I lose track of time and can easily spend 10 hours on a session and still feel energized.
I currently use a hybrid system with a API 16 channel mixing console.
I'm probably close to 3 times your age and likely to have a massively larger knowledge base then you have HOWEVER, I really love your videos. I love the clean and direct way you present information. You're always very well balanced in your way of suggesting value and issues pro/con, as in this video. In fact, its rare that I have ever found anything to disagree with you on.
I watch your videos for several reasons but honestly, it's to save me time teaching other people things I have no patience to teach lol. I send them to your channel. You've saved me a lot of headaches and I owe you a thanks.
I opened my first studio to the public in 1987. It was open a year before that for my own use and I started recording in the A rooms in Los Angeles all the way back in 1978. I'm pretty experienced... and you have my respect.
Thank you
This is a great comment and high praise. Good job.
I use an analog console and a lot of analog gear just because it’s right for me. I still feel I get more vibe in this process. I’ll usually add all my tracks on the console, do all my analog processing, then print that process back in the DAW.
Then I’ll do automation and some plug in work to blend everything together. If the client needs changes, that can be done in the DAW.
I make good money mixing, mastering and producing music. I have never even touched a mixing desk (except for tracking)
Same.
Most modern music is stripped down.. Have you mixed projects similar to Michael's "Off The Wall" or Steely Dan's "Aja" ? I'm talking mixes with lot's of elements like live brass sections, 30 piece live orchestra plus a rhythm section with multiple overdubs and 48 to 64 tracks of vocals ? 😂.. Getting pristine mixes with all of those elements with the same depth and detail as the great mixes of Bruce Swedien are on another level compared to 90% of stuff I hear today ..
@@Avatar7x7i think the advantage they had was more time to take care and pay close attention to the material
@@XVIIIPRO Agreed - but I think the op amps and electronics of high end consoles impart a sonic characteristic that's pleasing to our ears .. I've listened to vocals put through a Warm Audio hardware compressor that sounded better than any plugin compressor that I've heard ! I know that pro mixes done with the best audio gear available today will sound good in the box as well but I can only compare in the box mixes to watching 1080p video and top quality analog mixes to watching 4k or 8k.. there's a depth and detail that I don't hear when listening to in the box mixes.. The exception is if you have a genius audio engineer who's familiar with old school mixing techniques and knows how to compensate for the sonic differences ... at least to my ear 😂
@@Avatar7x7I've always like Andy Wallace 😊
nothing beats having a tactile analog EQ on every channel. The EQ in a decent analog mixer beats anything I've found in software and forces me to use my ears. Maybe it's the filters or amplifiers or the frequency knobs on them, idk, but it sounds amazing.
I pipe my MPC Live 2 through an analog mixer from the early 90s with 16 channels, by using a class compliant USB audio interface creating 10 outputs going into the mixer. For mixdown, I pipe 8 mixer outputs (2 master + 6 subgroups) into my DAW using another audio interface, from which I monitor everything. One groups for drums, bass, etc. Each of those groups is a track in Ableton for recording/bus FX.
It's completely changed how I make music since I try to as much as possible on my MPC because I'm completely unproductive in a DAW (too much choice, too much distraction).
I also love physical faders and recording them live, instead of less musical automation. Makes it a performance.
Routing outboard audio effects via inserts or via subgroups and sending groups of channels to aux to a reverb for ex, is extremely useful, the mixer is a better user interface than DAWs as it's easier to keep track of everything going on.
I use DAWs only for mastering/bus chain software FX (tweaked live, not just after printing stems) and final arrangement.
I need a mixer in MY studio! I’ve been mixing music since the mid-1960’s, and, and the “In Tbe Box” method just doesn’t cut it for me! I NEED a bevy of controls for the mics and the guitar channels, since I can easily get to things like EQ and effects without having to get into the 15th sub-menu page just to get EQ while tracking. My console is a 32-channel Toft, connected to a Studio Mac running Digital Performer, and a raft of plug-ins. The upshot of this is simple - I can I can and have recorded and mixed essentially ANYTHING in my studio, from a three-piece rock band to a full symphony orchestra. This console is a great grandson of the consoles built expressly by and for Malcolm Toft’s studios, which he built in London’s West End, and it sounds MAGNIFICENT!
"I’ve been mixing music since the mid-1960’s" makes you at least eighty years old. And you're still working with adequate hearing?
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx eh, he could be 10, 11, 12 when we started mixing
@@PTF_The_Maestro Not sure how many studios or acts in the mid-1960s were employing children to mix their albums and singles.
Why I love my studiolive series iii. Clean pres , can monitor with effects but record pre the fx on a per channel basis. Automation controller. Got outboard gear hooked up through it permanently. Talkback and a avb network for stageboxs in other rooms. Plus individual monitoring controls a user can adjust to taste. Problem solver.
That sounds nice, I'm too poor to own that so I fake it with an big analog one and audio interfaces :)
How do handle inserts? I looked at a picture and dont see any
@@daniel_dumile I’m a blue collar poor working guy. I made sacrifices for what little I have. Ain’t no shame in this man. A analog mixer and interfaces is all good. I use to run a cheap analog mixer into interfaces back in the day. Mostly to run vocals into cheap hardware before the interface.
I strongly suggest getting that tactile control surface, it lets you get the best of both worlds. You keep all the recall possibilities, all the automation, etc, but also can use the tactile operation of 'real' faders, the speed of operation of a physical mixing console, and you can get an overview of all important parameters during mixing at a glance.
The market for those has somewhat exploded, and you can get them in a very wide range of price points and quality levels. The most important things to pay attention to is the accuracy of the faders, how easy it is to use multiple fader banks, how expandable they are (many allow you to add expansion controllers, which lack the main 'DAW control' buttons and jog shuttle, just add more faders and 'channel' buttons and dials), and of course, the faders being motorized, because without that, you don't get the 'at a glance' overview.
Seeing a control surface follow the automation you setup can be quite fascinating, but also provides very good feedback on that automation.
It really gets you the best of both worlds, while usually requiring a lot less space than a full sized traditional mixing console.
Great info! Thanks!
Ugh I tried those control surfaces and dealing with midi assignment is such a PIA. I just like the simplicity of a mixer. That comes with lots of cable management but I find that far more intuitive and easier to reason with than assigning knobs to every parameter then getting a new controller and starting all over gain cuz the last one sucked.
Unless there's direct one-to-one connection between the controller and the DAW I'm not interested. We need iphone type vertical integration.
I have a Qcon Pro X controller surface, I got it so I wouldn’t have to look at the screen for as long while mixing. I usually use it when I’m mixing a lot of songs
@@daniel_dumile I use ableton live, have the controller ser to mackie protocol, from there it is plug and play. Ableton recognizes the controller and all works out of the box.
@@LowKeyPorter I use a Qcon Pro G2, essentially the same story.
I know the way we record music is changing and change is good. But I have to say that ole analog sound of a mixing desk with the outboard processing gear is where it is for me. Digital just can't mimic that no matter how many plugins you use.
Facts
Nicely stated man! All of the great 70s rock and country music and 80s heavy metal and 80s M tv synth pop was recorded on 24 track reel to reel and processed thru an analog desk, with tube compressors and analog rack effects. Digital software can't match that 👍
Very well explained! I started out as maintenance engineer in a studio called Mayfair (London) and we had a Neve VR, an SSL9000K, an Amek big, an EMI TG12345 console.. running a session was a very expensive process, these days I mainly work ITB and bounce my effects back into the session. This allows me to stay fresh and enjoy working on a mix knowing I can recall it instantly at any moment in time. But that is my workflow…
I grew up on tape & consoles. I came into the digital realm, kicking & screaming . . . .
However, once I got here . . . I haven't touched a console in YEARS. Have a 16 ch interface & love it.
Same here!!!
One of the biggest drawbacks of working in the box is that (without having a means of summing channels together) put each mic on a separate track instead of creating stereo pairs of parts that are heard in stereo in the final mix. Doing this means that you have to use your ears and have an overall sonic goal in mind when you start recording. So many of those who work fully 'in the box' are not 'en-gin-ears', but 'en-gin-eyes' who use visual feedback more than aural feedback. Creativity tends to get exercised more when there are restraints placed on the one creating. With tape, you were forced to think about the end product up front. In the early days of two track recording, engineers learned how to blend instruments in a room together, select mics for their overall sonic quality, and make sonic decisions up front. These engineers were the ones who most always cut fat, monster tracks, and also mixed well because they learned their art and craft in the days of barebones technology... before automation made things 'easier'.
Does one need a console in today's in-the-box environment? Yes and no! If you're making music by yourself, not really. However, if you're any form of commercial facility, having a console gives you a central point of workflow. There are some very affordable consoles around now, especially given that the market has shifted to demanding more affordable gear. Used consoles are also available at an even MORE affordable price point... many of which have already been updated with new switches and have been re-capped so that they work just as if they were new. From there it all boils down to your power bill and the space available for your studio. For both tracking and mixing, a console can speed up your recording process and make it easier to get the sounds that you're already hearing.
Just my two cents worth after working in both environments and listening to what a lot of individuals have to say. In the end, it's all up to you! Use your ears!!!
Very good point. Thanm you.
recording music to tape in the studio is like carving a statue out of marble; next level skills.
100 % true. So many of those who work fully 'in the box' are not 'en-gin-ears', but 'en-gin-eyes' who use visual feedback more than aural feedback.
Stereo field collapse was the main problem with mixing in the box, and an analog mixer fixed that, but I’m not sure that’s an issue anymore.
Well, in most cases I think the discussion goes like this: How much does it cost? Oh, in that case I'll do it in the box...
I use and need a mixing console. But I got rid of my computer recording setup and got a Stephens 821b two inch 24 track and the only way to practically mix without a computer is with a mixing console. Latency is very noticeable to a singer even with fairly low latency in the form of comb filtering. Recall is a bit of a pain in the backside, fader automation can be a lifesaver if you have a console with it. The Stephens has been quite reliable but it is a good idea to either learn to fix it, or know a technician that learns how to fix that particular machine.
Always love your videos, great job. For me, I will never go back to life without a console because for my specific work flow, it makes everything so much easier. My studio primarily records live bands with a focus on live drums, and I primarily work with local bands who want real drums on their album but don't have the gear to do so, or the cash to rent out one of the big studios in town. Tracking bass, guitar and vocals has become pretty easy for most bands to do at home, or in their rehearsal spaces. But a full kit, that's still a challenge.
Routing, and the amount of money a console can save is why I love them. Like I said, I track drums a lot. It's not uncommon for me to put 20 mics up during a drum tracking session. For a long time, I tracked everything directly into the DAW. So after tracking drums, my DAW had 20 individual tracks in it. Many of these tracks are meant to be summed together, like the mics on the top and bottom of the snare, or the multiple mics on the kick drum etc. With a console, I can rout them through a Bus on the console with the push of a button, and send the summed signal to the DAW. This makes it very easy to funnel down those 20 channels to just 5 or 6 channels to work with in the DAW. Making editing, and mixing so much easier. Typically I'll send all the overhead mics to a stereo bus and into the DAW on a stereo channel. Same with the tom mics, the room mics also get their own. Then a mono bus for kick, and one for snare.
Consoles also save you a ton of money if you are tracking live drums and live bands. I think most people associate the word mixing console with $100,000 Neve, API, or SSL consoles. And, yes, those would be cool. But lets face it, if you're watching this video, you probably don't have the budget for one of those. You can get a 24 channel, split line console from Trident or Audient for like $22,000. That's still a ton of money, but compare that to buy 24 outboard mic preamps with EQ. Even better, the late 80s and early 90s saw a huge home studio/project studio revolution and many companies made mixing consoles for this market. Great sounding, incredibly functional mixing consoles that now go used for dirt cheap. Brands like Sound Craft, and Mackie (among others) made smaller format mixing consoles anywhere from 16 to 32 tracks. I used to have a Mackie 8bus console, and it worked great. 16 split line inputs (meaning you can use the same channel for input and output. Tracking and mixing) with 8 busses, a series of Aux sends ect. I bought that used for $200. Just a few weeks ago I found a Sound Craft series TWO with 24 tracks, 8 busses, 8 Aux sends etc for $350.
If you're just starting out recording drums, there's already enough gear you need to buy in the form of microphone, cables, and stands. Instead of spending a ton more money on an interface that can support 16 or 24 or 32 inputs, plus buying all the outboard preamps to populate those inputs, you can buy a much more reasonably priced 8 input interface and a console.
How things have changed , it's wonderful
hybrid all the way for me...I'm just about to get my hands on a souncraft spirit studio...I started with older yamaha mg series16 and 12 subbed together. I like the anaolgue summing and feel...mostly the fun of messing with gear.,..gives me the greatest joy of all..its just a hobby for me.
This is so good man. As someone who is self taught and has straddled both the analog and digital this is incredibly well explained and gives me ideas on how to do hybrid environment (given that I don't want to totally give up on the tactile nature of faders and knobs). Thanks!
I do an awful lot of Big Band work. Sometimes I do Groups with two Drummers. I'll be damned if I'm going to screw around with a room full of outboard mic preamps. The workflow on a console is so much faster. I'm rarely afforded the time to mess around. Of course I record to and mix in Pro Tools, but a Console on the front end is a must.
Hmmmm its been more than 30 yrs since ive heard or come across an ssl board. I just heard a recording done at home with just a computer and mike and was blown away by how clean and clear it sounded. So even though an all digitized recording may sound a little harsh there are ways to make it sound warm. So in my book those boards maybe a thing of the past. BTW Im 62
im a 29 yo studio baby been inside the control room since birth, writing this comment in one now , ( I live in my studio) if your record ACTUAL MUSIC . you need a BOARD. (Aka console) my Allen and heath 32 channel is amazing (analog/digital) , I currently use this as my interface and can double as a daw controller. nothing super huge and heavy, NO LATENCY , talkback is obviously EASY. and of course the analog warmth going into the daw. and patching rack inserts is seamless. I think you should be mixing in the box, but a real studio engineer should have some form of a console to basically be the brain or conductor of the studio. almost like a transit hub station all things start and end there and route your sound to where ever it needs to go.
you forgot to add how beneficial an analog console is for getting new clients. I see many studios just using the console to get people in the door, and they don't actually use the gear. I'm wondering if there is any research done on this subject?
Hehe, I do not run a professional studio, through I do some payed for recording in my home studio. People were indeed way more impressed by the old, and no longer used, analog mixing console I have around than by the much more capable digital audio workstation. Adding a nice control surface with motorized faders etc did change that tho, those can look really impressive to lay people 🙂
There is a WOW factor to a console. There is also an intimidation factor. I try setting an atmosphere of creativity, comfort & relaxation.
I've been on the mixer for 33 years now, both studio and live.
In studio i use both methods, analogue and digital. I use RME as well, as in my opinion (according to my ears - others can have different opinions) it's the most linear (characterless) interface on the market.
In one of your slides you shown a neve consolle going to a studer multitrack tape recorder, and that's the gear i used for a long time. Funny enough, since old studers are very sensitive and delicate machines and spare parts are not easy to come by, when it became "less usable" the neve basically became the preamp going straight to the RMEs. Best of both worlds, so that the raw tracks are already good (I totally disagree with the "fix it in post" that most producers want, just to save on studio time).
The debate of what's best between digital and analogue doesn't interest me much. I believe all depends on who's using it.
Real audio engineers should be able to use all techniques, because the target is the same, and that is good sound. Unfortunately nowadays many "young graduates" think that top level gear automatically can make them great.
Anyway, your content is good and topics clearly explained, I often suggest it to people still learning.
Have a good day.
I tend to do a lot of solo one-take recordings with several synths, so a mixer is nice because I don’t even have to open the DAW until I’m finally ready to record. I’ve also learned how to set up a good mix quickly with a few simple controls.
Nice to get reminded on how powerful and inexpensive music/audio reording could be
Great thoughts but missed one option . . . the hybrid of using a control surface with a DAW. Doing so keeps the best of both worlds of both the board and box. The ability to "using the board as a performance piece" is super nice as it engages the engineer more into supple musical details by allowing the ability to do rides and changes on the fly. It still allows the ability to save session settings, including the ride changes and effects processing so that the tedious need to write session settings down.
If you have the budget and the artistic inclination to engage the mix more, then a control surface / DAW mix is an option.
This video is perfect. Sending it to all of my students now
I'm equally comfortable with both workflows, but prefer a console for tracking.
EDIT: I've also done some live outdoor theater stuff and prefer a mixer for that, too. Sometimes you need faster reaction than a mixer interface on a tablet (or worse, a mouse on a laptop) and the tactile sense to finely adjust controls by touch alone.
I honestly prefer using the console before it goes into the PC and prefer using the DAW program for mixing post. I also use tape. The thing that I do that's totally unconventional is if I use a multitrack deck, I only have 2 channels going into the computer. The way I get around that is I find a noise on the tape prior to the starting song and I use that as the reference and line all the tracks up using that noise. I got a lot of practice doing it that way and it's not as bad as it seems. The thing I like about the mixer is it has a parametric EQ so I can make the mids sound great. By also doing that, everything else is flat and sounds beautiful. Your ears are your best tools for this.
Mixing on desk feels fantastic,you can mix faster with best results,specially in stereo imaging and clarity,after 20years I’m back to consoles
I personally prefer having a mixing console . I can't stand looking at a screen for extended periods of time. I like being able to physically make adjustments with knobs and faders. I also feel like there's more control when using aux sends. I still produce in the box sometimes, but I mostly have a hybrid work flow. I can also record totally analog with my 16 track tape machine which is what i been doing as of late. I have it all routed to go either way I choose. Analog, hybrid, or in the box. 😊
I have been a pro audio guy since 1987……shit I’m old…..buuuut, I grew up on tape and analog desks. Once I got into mixing in the box, I love the automation it was so much easier in the box. Nobody can deny the convenience of mixing in the box. However, the satisfaction of mixing on an analog desk is unsurpassed. It really connects you more to the music. Today I run a hybrid set up with a 56 ch Neve desk. I basically do all the normal edits in the DAW, but everything comes back up on the desk where it gets fader love and insert love from real 1176, LA2-a, Lexicon verbs and delays etc…. And all the patching can be done right on the desk as well as all of the monitor and control. So I don’t ‘need’ extra patchbays If I hardwire, right to the same inserts, all the time. All of the monitor control functions like switching speakers, and input sources are built into the master section, including monitor switching, talkback, matrix and group mixing, group inserts of hardware etc 2 bus insert points. And even if people are tracking at different times, they sound all uniform because they’re coming for the same preamps and all of the same analog summing. And because I run a commercial recording studio, I get the ‘wow’ factor when people walk into the control room for the first time. Nobody has ever looked at my mouse and went ‘wow!’. I honestly believe it helps people feel like you’re more serious when they see a bunch of knobs in front of you. Because not everybody knows what they do. But everybody do you say is can run a computer so if all they see is a computer why wouldn’t they just bother doing some of that stuff themselves? Throwing a mixer up in front of you looks confusing and kind of like your superhero. I deal with national caliber Musicians literally every day and many of them have home studios and demo ITB. Yet they still come to me, because of what desk gives them. I know Some of the top mixing engineers are mixing all in the box these days. Good for them I know it can be done because the consuming public has never cared what equipment was used to record their favorite songs. They never have, and never will. But from a sales standpoint, having a mixing console is incredibly powerful if you want to be taken seriously. A large portion of my clients are other independent engineers That have their own studios, mostly at their homes. But they keep coming to me to run their clients through my stuff in my rooms. Because it helps their clients take them more seriously. So I guess in summary, I would say if you want to be taken seriously by people above you in the music community, get a mixer. If you only care about impressing your local friends or hip-hop artist that I need a vocal mic then don’t bother. But if you want to be a pro, you have to present what people expect to see when they’re paying you $700-$1000 a day.
‘“More modern tools” phrases like that insinuate that nobody is making mixing consoles any more.
I'm no expert at all on all this. Been creating for 3yrs now. No samples.
I don't have any cool equipment.
I use FL studio. And a M1 audio keyboard with a surround sound speaker. Lol. Now that's as cheap as it gets. But this video fully helped. So thanks for the info!!
Another great video, and I’m also a fan of the RME audio interfaces.
Professionals and intermediate home music producers are all using software and computer interfaces such as Apogee and pro tools. I don't know how to use any of that, but Ive seen what it can do. But I tell you, I had a grand time in the 90s making demos for lots of bands that played all music styles with my tascam 238 Syn cassette 8 track recorder, my 90s mackie 1604vlz mixer, my 90s alesis midiverb, and my Shure sm57's!
sometimes seeing the price asked for some tremendous vintage mixers is confusing when you see what can be ask for an old and qwerky monimoog (just the faders on an old a&h or soundcraft mixer pre 85 i'de say, are worth being kept compared to what you can find on anything under 1k5 these days). form 500 bux/euros and a little driving you can find really nice deals for vintage mixer> Of course the use of a mixer the way music is done in nowadays with what's available isnt necessery, allthough i personally have been working in the realm of dub these last years, and here is a style where not havibg a proper mixer is out of question, but finding smaller "prosumer" vintage mixers like let's say a tapco can be usefull for "caracter" for a procucer, for someone working as a mix engineer... well i'de say it's more a matter of use and confort, in the realm of music production there are ones that do it all in the box, and others (like me i have to say) that want a bunch of sperate generators that take a bunch of exploitable physical space, i'm pretty shure for inmgineers there must be the same geezers... I'm taking care of modding my Allen & Heath studio mk2 (16/4/2 enough for producing and dub mixing of stems, in 2024 who need a hudge studio mixer right? lol), making all my fx sends postfade and thinking of getting opamps with higher spec (072 inside). As i'm on this topic these days i just wanted to share my view on the topic, a mixer is cool to have but it's heavy and takes a lot of space....
Can't we just call it a 'dawww'. DeeAyeDoubleYou is such a mouthful, breaks up the continuity of speech.
I keep thinking the same thing lol...programmers say "gooey" not "geeyoueye" 😂.
Confusing when studios have doors.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx we can call the doors of passage D-O-O-R-S
@@dan.hampton Yes, that'll work better... surely.
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xx ok, let's just remove the doors from studios then all together, problem solved
Good thorough video. Couple things..the versatility of being able to change the sound of your mix bus in a daw only setup is cool, but if you have a console that has a signature sound that you love, that's another point to consider maybe. Some people like NO color in their mix bus, other's love what an analog console brings in terms of sound, hence the zillions of console plugin emulations out there. They might get you close....it's a matter that's been debated a million and a half times online. I realize for the purpose of this video though, combined with the ambiguity of personal sound preference, this would have been a hard thing to cover. One other thing I learned though, while mixing using a DAW through an analog console is this: If you miss a cue? Presumably you're running your daw outputs into the console, and the console's mix output to a pair of converter inputs (providing it's a stereo mix). If you miss a cue, rewind, set a punch in locater, and punch in your two track mix, and redo your missed cue. No need to start all over. Also, take photos with your phone and put them in the session's folder of pics. No need for pencil and paper if you can clearly read the nomenclature in the photos. Been doing this since before phones could take photos with a digital camera. Besides, I'd probably use some notepad app, or just the notes section for each track in the DAW to write down the settings for the outboard and console for each track instead of pencil and paper. I mean, using a console doesn't mean going completely back to 1975. One last thing. If you have an analog console, and you have a daw? You can mix either way. If you feel like the console will sound better for a project, you can use it. If you want the sound of the DAW, just don't use the console. If all you have is a DAW, then you have but one choice... Thanks for the cool video!
I like giving headphone mixes a bit of compressor/limiter so the singer can really hear themselves and in turn they step back from the mic and avoid plosives.
I use a 32 channel digital mixer/audio interface. The main advantage is that I can connect up a bunch of mics and musicians will get headphone mixes at zero latency. Reverb is easily available to singers if they want in their headphones. When I have clients returning for more tracking, I have saved all their settings and literally by the flick of a finger, I am back where we left off! I wouldn’t swap it for anything else. Saves a lot of time and frustration.
What mixer is it?
@@johnlackner1193 It’s an Allen & Heath QU-32
I would like to first say that I track a lot of drums and I have found the best combination of plugins to get the coveted analog sound, I start with a simple mic setup toms snare 2 kick and one overhead and second overhead over the shoulder,and a small condenser for a room mic . Then I track through the voost EQ and mix most of everything with the Harrison 32 C all in reaper that I paid 60 for 10 years ago. I also use the scheps Omni with the C6 on the mix buss and sweet drums on the main drum buss . It brings incredible results. Cheers
10:09 Maybe I'm just old, but calling an iPad a tactile controller is a bit of a stretch.
I'm using the Midas m32 mixing consol. For me the right choise to have a 32 channel audio interface with channel strips, endless routing capabilities in seconds and a daw controller. I think digital mixing consols are great to size down the consols and to have the benefit to have the best of both worlds.
I have the mr18 , very handy set up with the control surface options live or studio.
@@MG53v8 Yes, the mr18 works too but no real faders. And the motorized faders of the m32 are so cool 👍
This is a good topic and title and thumbnail and I must watch
Nice to have, definitely. But I’ve long stopped using them and just use a highish end audio interface with 16channels. I also have a couple of boutique pre-amps for that ‘big desk’ sound on input. Sometimes the summing of a classic analogue desk is incredibly pleasing but modelled plugins sound great too.
I've mixed on both a full analog console and 'in the box' and I am thinking a large multitouch monitor is going to be the future of mixing.
Same in photography, it's a bad practice to rely on fixing in post. Capture the good stuff in analog(good lighting, appropriate Lens choice and aperture, shutter speed and iso), because these things is difficult to fix in post. Also in terms of devices, almost everything now have a cheaper alternative to produce the same output. However, expensive equipment will out-shine cheaper alternatives in dire environments, like poor lighting in photography, same with audio recording.
I came up mixing on SSL, Neotek, API consoles - straight off tape to 2-track.
I started using ProTools for some things in 1994.
Fast forward (ha) to today. I’m using Logic, Reaper, Ableton, Reason, and ProTools, all mixing in the box (with the occasional console-as-summing mix).
Once in a while I’m pulling out my admittedly sparse hair re-registering plugins, dealing with OS updates, etc, but overall, the repeatability and the workflow in the box has been a boon and enabled dives into greater creativity.
Just try to listen for the emotional content and don’t get seduced into mixing only with your eyes.
I like the way you present the information, thank you for all your videos. In a desert island scenario, I would choose digital for instantaneous recall.
I was recording directly to interface but with output, I’ve found having a desk a massive benefit, obviously it depends what you’re mixing but I felt what I was dealing with suited having the analog warmup and eq, also having the faders and being able to use the thing as another instrument feature has been gold. I have 36 in and 30 outs on my interface setup and so I put 16 channels in and out of a desk that’s 24 and use the other channels as backup as each strip in modular and can be swapped out. I found bouncing between both digital and analog tools really useful but also with the 16 track, I can record both digital and analogue 16 track simultaneously and if you really wanna hear the difference between the two, this is the way, and I can already guess which of the two you will prefer the sound of. Honestly v useful but also far more complicated and difficult to deal with. You need really good systems to manage
I think something that he missed was it’s all about what you do in the studio, if you spend all day every day with bands where you need to quickly put a mix together, a mixer is really good for that however, if you spend most of your time making beats and just recording separate instruments and vocals the mixer is wasted as you will be doing most of the mixing in the box. However this also depends on how the mixer is setup, if you’re just using the desk for tracking or mixing too.
Great video. Very related to me as we're moving studios and installing a 40 channel console in the new space. It'll be 32 in and out to the DAW. I've worked all different ways over the 35 + years I've been recording and creating music.
This will be watched again. ❤❤❤❤
No. But it does make certain elements of recording much easier/quicker
I still feel the need for a mixer. I don't have one, but soon. A good DAW controller is the Arturia mkii series. The 62 key suits my current needs. Also Ableton Push is a great option.
I love analog consoles for haptic feedback and IO bus outs into interface and sub out into 2 track tape. There is a color difference between console recording and direct recording and I prefer console. I also enjoy turning daw off and just mix outboard.
I enjoyed this video, Other than the RME commercials. There’s a lot to be said about analog mixing boards. The good quality ones such as the vintage Neve’s and SSL add character that is hard to correctly emulate with plugins. Their digital counterparts (plugins) have come close. Most good engineers that have used both could correctly identify their differences. The digital age has definitely simplified recording. I was fortunate to work in a studio that utilized a vintage SSL board and a 24 track tape machines. Of course, we had the option to record using the digital method as well. I believe both analog and digital recording methods have their advantages. IF I had the resources, I would have both including a quality tape machine. Thanks for mentioning processing during the recording process. It’s huge. It’s a very common practice that good engineers utilize and it does take skill to do properly.
Every studio I been to that works specifically in mixing and mastering either has a console or a bad ass multi summing solution with different flavors of outboard gear but at the end of the day just use what you have available and create your art
I would also emphasized on the fact that tape machines are limited in the number of tracks they can record so one would need to downmix all the input channels.
DAWs are able to record as many channels as needed (basically the amount of interfaces available) so there is no need to mix all the inputs available on the interface(s) to a lower track count.
Love your channel but what you didn't mention is if you have analog modules running thru stereo on the analog mixer as well as other gear, a simple 8 channel interface will not suffice and you would need to expand your ADAT or Spdif connection, there are benefits to both I'm just not willing to give up all the analog gear in place of digit, I would love to see a comparison with an API 2448 console to a RME fireface UFX 3
At my school we had to use an AVID S6, which I felt was a good mix between analog and digital (not that I've ever used analog outside of live sound).
I liked doing the basic rough mix entirely on the S6, and then refining it later in the box on my laptop
Just got a deal on a 24 x 8 bus, definitely needed this run thru
Awesome! Enjoy! How do you plan to use it?
@@AudioUniversity as a line mixer into my DAW. Bus the drums as 2 outputs [9 in] into a tascam model 12, as the audio interface then computer,.
I operate my home studio out of a midas Mr18 and it is awesome! The preamps are very nice, and so is the ability to use it as an 18 channel interface. Even better though is all of those monitoring features, eq, gates, comp, reverb available on all channels to our in ears. It's also what we use live so we get to carry forward our settings. For anyone looking for the best bang for your buck for a rehearsal space, home studio, and live mixer you can't beat it!
Is there any mixer that accepts optical cable as input? I want to mix sound from tv with microphone for karaoke. I am using adapter for current setup.
I’d recommend using an HDMI audio de-embedder between the source and the display. That will be HDMI in and HDMI out with some analog audio outputs.
Need it for recording drums with eq, rehearsals, monitoring and talkback
If it's only about making easy, then one could get Neutron 5 etc, and have the job done lightning fast. I am more interested in sound quality results. I have a Studer 962 with 40 in and use 18 to 24 in to mix OTB with a Neve 33609 ( hardware) inserted on the PT Master out, then coming back from the Studer Master out to an aux bussed to a track in PT to print offline. I keep the fader on the board to -5db and sparingly use the eq for maximum repeatability. I feel that's the best sound i've had yet...
Great vid! Jumping off this though, I think something I wish I was taught better when I started a million years ago is managing redundancies in amateur, pro-am and pro contexts.
Good audio interface and any daw with stock plugins are good enough for tracking, mixing and mastering. It’s amazing what we can do these days for a few $$$
Another great informative video, as you have said the preference will mostly be based on which generation you experienced mixing equipment on. I personally think the Hybrid set up is the best of both worlds. Once thing you have not covered is the final mix of a recording. For example, Donald Fagan “The Night fly “or any of Steely Dan’s albums have a great sound. Morden music of today seems not to have detailed sound of each instrument and is very precise.
Was this a commerdial for RME equipment?
Not sure what a commerdial is, but he said the video was sponsored by RME at the beginning.
I would like to ask you where did you get your Desk ? I'm interested in a Desk for my self. Can you please advise me on this.
This is a Sessiondesk! It’s great! If you’re in the U.S., you can get one at Audioscape.
Definitely a mixing console or at least a control surface. Tactile feedback is important. You don\t want to drive a car or fly a plane with a mouse or a touchscreen. Right?
I personally use the best of all worlds: digital mixing console, plugins and most of automation inside a DAW and some outboard gear. My typical mix has 1 to 5 channels of analog outboard. It doesn't take that much effort to write down the settings on an Excel sheet template which has a cell for all knobs of my every external processor.
I dont know much, but..theres a big mixing board on my computer that can run to this cd machine, But I dont make tapes or Cd’s..I just make beats.
Great video as always. Thank you.
You mentioned you were investigating a control surface. I'm intrigued to know what your thoughts are about the current options available.
In the passt time recordinng on analog MT machine, the sound must to be in most timed ready to Mix, today i work both, in the Box digital and analoge 24 Track 2" with the SSL 4000G desk , i am over 60 and around 40 years Studio worker,
Long time watcher. Thanks for making great content.
I noticed you had a Radial EXTC in your Cranborne R8. Are you able to use the send/receive via the back insert ports? I ask because I want to get the R8 and stick a pair of EXTCs in them without having to run the effects loop out of the front ports. That way I can run the back ports into my patchbay. Sweetwater says this cannot be done, but I suspect otherwise.
I haven’t actually used the inserts. I suspect they are not designed to be used with high-Z, instrument-level gear.
That is a Cranborbe 500ADAT, but the same answer applies.
The cables do get in the way. For this reason, I just use a Radial reamp box from my patch bay to my amps (because these are further away from the EXTC) and I use the EXTC for pedals.
@@AudioUniversity Thanks for the quick reply. I wondered about the impedance too, but I don't think the EXTC is strictly high Z for the FX loop, as some pedals work at line level too. If you ever test this out, please post and let us know. I've been eyeing this setup for awhile.
Also, I think it's funny that you talk about mixing almost exclusively in the box yourself but the R8 gives you console like signal paths with whatever channel components you want, either for tracking or mixing. It's a super hybrid approach without the console/outboard space/cost and I'm surprised more people don't go this way.
Nice video. I have a big studio with great gear and sometime fancied an old analog mixer but the fact is , it’s not really needed at least not for my case . I do electronic music and rarely touch a microphone so all gear goes straight to the converters . When I need too beef up a synth or something else then I have a few channel strips that do the mixer job ( minus the hassle of the size and potencial breakdowns) . For the electronic music studio I think it’s not convenient . Now for a rock band or an orchestra or similar setups well you really need those mixers to make you work easy. However this is almost 2025 with fpg technology, greater computers 32 floating point , and awesome computers and converters and amazing vst I thing it’s just a matter or time until theses mixers become irrelevant.
So if you just use vst plugins and some hardware synths and you dont use live instruments and mics then a mixer is not needed then right?
Some great mixers on Kijiji etc for dirt cheap because people don't want them. Years ago I'd have dreamed of having one of them but now I'm just a bit sad that I have no need for a 24 channel mixer. It's simply not my kind of workflow any more. Multiple small mixers distributed round my studio better meet my needs.
It's strange...I grew up in an era of great music with really bad mixes and poor pressings. Today's music is garbage but sounds fantastic.
The best mixing, sonically, I’ve ever heard was DJ Quik’s Rhythm-al-ism
You can do great work without a console, but there is flavor and color in using the right mixing desk.
Interesting!
Personally, I only need a good sound recording device with 2 channels. Most of my recordings are either non musical sounds (mostly sound for videos) or on sometimes, live music (where the goal is to recreate the experience of being there as good as possible, not to do a mix). An external preamp is another thing though. Even some really good recorders or cameras (that perform well when recording line level signals) often have crap preamps in them. The problem is mostly noise.
Even when using the line setting, if the recording level is adjustable, the SNR (the ratio between 0 dBfs and the average level of the noise floor) for most devices get better the lower the recording level is. So it's better to use an external good preamp and adjust the recording level by the gain, than adjusting the level in the recorder or camera.
I have built my own preamp and have a DC/DC flyback converter in my design - so I can run conveniently on a single 18650 or 5V USB power (I use mine mostly as a portable device) and still supply the opamps in the reamp circuit, +/- 15 V (that way, the preamp will never clip before the recorder).
In my particular case, I also use microphones that I have built my self from Primo EM273 capsules - and to get the best performance out of those (mainly when it comes to distortion at high SPL), they have to be powered up in an unconventional way with either a 3 lead configuration (which is the one shown in the data sheet), that has a separate power and signal lead - or a 2 lead configuration with negative voltage (unbalanced, with ground positive instead of negative) - which is the one I use, since it's more conveninent to be able to use small RCA connectors, when it's an unbalanced signal anyway. A voltage regulation circuit is also needed to get stable voltage to the capsules and lowest possible THD. This is against all normal standards, so I need a custom built preamp anyway.
white fl studio background grid is wild
I'm very curious on how you connect the 12 mic preamp to the UCX II. Are you using ADAT? Which in that case you're only able to get 8 mic preamps?
Good stuff, thanks! RME Q:
Should one care that the UFX series has Min (ASIO) buffer size 32 while the UCX has 48? When you get into the hard to find specs the UFX series look much better on paper.
Hi guys I rang a shop yesterday inquiring about an analog mixer and I found it weird that the guy instead of helping me to find what suited my needs , decided to bare on his poor knowledge and tell me that it’s more economical to work in the box. In my opinion working in the box totally is great for instruments that were well recorded in proper environments. Now saying that I mostly produce reggae and “world” music. So I’m trying to reduce my plugin footprint and adding “natural saturation “ from mic pres through my focusrite out to a mixer and back into my daw also there’s an eq and comp on each channel. So , I’m still looking for a recommendation on a 24 channel mixer under £1000 please tag me in any suggestions
problem with using a computer is you only have one pointer to work with. wheras on a board its "all right there." its also like super expensive. cause now you need cabling (which can cost more than the board itself), racks, etc etc . whereas on the computer its all free, as in $0 or nearly.
I came *THIS* close to getting that RME UCXii. It looks freaking amazing. But at the end, i got the Motu ultralight MK5. So jealous
Are there any links of some of the music you've mixed that you can maybe point me towards?
Interesting, my main use of a mixer desk is for live sound at a church. We almost went down the path of using a digital mixer, driven by an iPad etc (after our original mixed was stolen) I chose old school as things are technically simpler with no layers of functions that can be 'mucked up' by passing misguided 'helpers'
One simple task often used is changing a few faders at the same time, as in fade out the band and bring up the priests mic, somthing rather impossible using a mouse on a computer.
There is nothing like coming in on Sunday for a service only to find. the hard way, that some visiting funeral directors etc. have twiddled about every knob imaginable. No matter how thorough I am, there is always something I've missed. found in the most awkward of moments, mid service. (like swapping the input mic leads) aarrrggghhh
Always love the content! And I didn't know you used FL studio 😅... Unless you're an omni-daw man. Do you think a digital board with DAW remote would be the best of both worlds?
Thanks for sharing. U R AWESOME ; )
I don't disagree with any of your points but for me the distinction is simpler. If someone is a solo producer do it in the box. If someone works with others then hardware all the way.
I think those giant mixing consoles are a borderline marketing gimmick at this point. Look at any textbook on audio engineering from the AES or similar groups and they all have the obligatory mixing console on the cover. Nevermind that most enthusiasts will never use one and never need one. I've recorded bands, worked in radio, and currently work in audio preservation, and I've never needed a full studio mixing console. Analog is nice, but a 500 series setup should be enough for anyone who doesn't want to go digital.