Internal Vs External Mixdowns
 

I hear this statement alot....

"The summing of the internal busses on a DAW are done with numbers, not voltages, so this is your biggest compromise. A better option would be mixing through an analogue console...."

So my question is this: When mixing down, is it better to take my main mix (on my Mackie stereo line channel) and route it back into the computer to record the mixdown, or just do it internally (export/bounce to stereo) in my DAW????

What do you guys reckon (do you even care?)

Jase

Re: Internal Vs External Mixdowns
 

If you did that your not getting any analog summing. Summing is adding.
You need more than one stereo out, at least 4 stereo pairs if you've got them, more is better. Send different parts of your mix to different hardware outputs, they will get summed/added/mixed in your Mackie. Record the stereo mix from your Mackie to your PC.
Even if you dont use the Mackie eqs, gain, faders(leave them at 0/unity) you may hear the improvement.
I hear it all the time.
Yes, I care. IMO digital summing is a compromise, just like VA synths. The payoffs are there for digital like cost, more channels etc, but something happens in those wires in the real world where atoms meet.

What about the signal degradation due to more DA/AD conversion? Is it a toss up between better mix, and more degradation???

Well its certainly not if your analog audio path is half decent.
I have some old Adat AI3 coverters - 24bit 44.1/48 8 chan. They sound fine, steer away from in the computer DAs.
I did some A/B tests after reading your post just to re-assure myself.
I could audition my analog summed mix against a digital summed mix with the same overal level at the output.

In the digital summed mix:
Only the loudest sound at any time is well defined.
Background level sounds lost some 3d position.
Hi hats were slightly stiff or brittle.
The kick was 2D, in that the empasis was on the 500hz to 1Khz.
The bass line was there but it masked most other detailed synth lines.

In the analog summed mix:
95% of the instrument levels and frequency balance was identical to the digitaly summed mix. The other 5% is where the good stuff happens.
Like the Bass and Kik can exist in the same frequency and both still be heard.
The lower bass (SUB 100hz) had organic power and space.
The tails of reverbs and delays stayed in focus, not smeared or lost.
Hi hats and other highs (7Kz to 20Khz) took less toll on the ears.
Nice lower level sounds stayed nice and could offer nice color even with a monster bass infront of them.

Think about all the DIGITALY compromised frequencies (say any wave shape you want to represent over 5Khz, in a 44.1/48khz mix) along with DIGITALY compromised loudness information (does anyone remember 8bit sound? what about 12bit?). Then get channels and channels of information you want to represent and make a mathematical picture of them and send it to just one DA.

The hidden benifit is that each sub group or sound you send to a DA sub mix bus can be louder (before clipping digitally) so you get a bit more dimension in each and every track.

Anyway the only way to believe is to prove it to yourself.

What do you call half decent? I definately wouldnt put my Mackie 1402VLZ in that category. I would though, put my Studer 169 in this category, but with old analogue, I would be introducing alot more hiss and noise into the audio, not to mention having to rebalance my mix as the line inputs are not calibrated....

Yep...thats true! Now, do you have any methods for grouping tracks..

For example, would you group all drum tracks together, all synth bass together, synth leads together etc.....does this matter?

If I were to run 4 stereo sub mixes into my Mackie mixer, could I use my stereo line channels, and keep them panned centre, or do you have to run them into mono channels and pan each pair hard left/right (or keep them centred?)

You will probably blast me for the last question, as it seems this is something I should know really...

Thanks for all the help/feedback....It is very interesting stuff..

all this analogue crap and digital crap...the only reason analogue supposedly sounds better is because it adds noise to the mix, which inturn fools the ears enough to make is sound fuller!! Its all preference...there is no better!!

peace
Blank

Hehehe, interesting comments there Blank. You have never recorded any "real" instruments I'm guessing.

I supose by "noise" you actually mean "warmth" - is that right?

Thats like saying that all synths sound the same, and Casio is no different to Virus.....

Why do you think all big studios still record to analogue tape, using analogue desk (Mmmm...Neve!) and preamps, and then use Vintage analogue processing (Mmmm....Urei!)

Tape, tubes, and transformers all add characteristic, harmonic distortion to the signal, musically pleasing.....3rd and 5th harmonics I believe (Mmm...analogue!)

Digital is decieving. Just because there is no apparent noise (Hiss), you think your signal is cleaner, but you are really only getting two 3rds of the information, the top third, which is the clearest and most well defined, but all the texture and character is lost in those last, insignificant bits....

Insignificant indeed!!! Bah......

And why do you think digital is so obsessed with 'emulating' analogue sound.....UAD-1's, VA's, tape emulators etc..

You obviously have not heard good analogue...cos if you had, you wouldnt say something like what you said.

When you think about those big, hit records (pop) with those lush drums, phat guitars, gorgeous vocals, think analogue mate. Think Neve, think teletronix, think Urei, think vintage, think tubes, and think tape....(oh yeah, and think Manley) cos this equipment is what is giving you those big, polished, gorgeous sounds....

i have recorded plenty of real instruments...i did rock for 10 years...

warmth...yeah it sounds like warmth...but it really isnt!! Its noise that fills the empty frequencies...im not saying its a bad thing...

peace
Blank

The noise is inherrant within these types of circuits, but it is texture, not the noise you hear.

Everyone can hear the noise, and it is definately not the noise filling in that space...it is the texture, the body, the tail.....

Yeah go ahead and prove that all big studios mix in analogue...you cant say that you have not been to all the big studios in the world...and dont dare say most because you havent been to most either...the truth of the matter is that its all preference...you cant refute that...there is no ultimate better way...its all about the sound you like!!

peace
Blank

call it what you will...actually no...texture huh? and what is that? define it...if it is not noise then define it...

peace
Blank

Thanks Jase, you put it in writing perfectly. Anything else Blank?

yes what is this unmeasurable texture!!

peace
Blank

Well how about this one...my buddy use to do tests to see if ppl could hear the difference between analogue and digital with synths...and everyone who listened to it missed atleast half of the answers...but of course you could just brush it off saying that all those 50 ppl who took the test didnt know what they were talking about but you guys do...

peace
Blank

Hit a snare....

The first sound your hear is the attack right? Which usually grabs our attention. The texture of the snare is not in the attack, but in what comes after this. This is where the body of the snare lies, and this is what digital doesnt do so well...

Digital is great at capturing the attack....not so good at capturing all the rest

And just because something is percievably "unmeasurable", doesnt mean that it is not valid, or does not affect our sense of perception. There is alot of psycho-acoustical phenomena happening, that cannot be qualified or quantified, but exists all the same, and defines what our ears perceive as "musical" or "pleasing"

No, not all big studios mix entirely in analogue. For example, at the 301 session I did the other day, we recorded straight to ProTools HD, but on the way the PT, we did go through some tasty Neve analogue, and other various bits of analogue outboard...

Oh yeah, we also used some tasty vintage mics......

yeah but where are you drawing the line? are you talking a drumset recorded through a analogue desk only...a drumset recorded through a digital desk is acceptable...or you talking a drumset recorded through a analogue desk vs a tr 606 on a digital desk?

and i guess you are also saying that digital recording has no texture then?

peace
Blank

And let me guess, the synths were recorded in a digital format right?

Get a Moog in your studio next to your VC conected to an analogue desk. Blind fold someone and sit them in the studio. Then play and ask if they can hear a difference. I have had people in my studio who don't know shit about synths and always they like the sound of the analogues for bass, always.

how did i know you were going to say that...

ok so what you all are saying is that you have to have an analogue instrument with an analogue desks...analogue everything otherwise its shit!

peace
Blank

Not everyone will be able to hear it, or pick it 10 times out of 10, but you can get pretty close if you know what to listen for...

Michael Stavrou (The Police, Paul McCartney, Cat Stevens, John Williams) did some tests too......and they were able to pick analogue Vs digital everytime.

So what were they listening for???

The sound of the fingers leaving the strings (on the left hand) after playing a note on guitar

That kind of intimate detail is not picked up in the digital domain....and this intamacy, shines through using analogue tape, even with all that hiss down there....

no it was an analoge desk...but the problem being here is at some point it has to go to a digital format because it was on the net...so are you going to say that because it at some point was then its no worth anything?

peace
BLank

yeah give me a recording so intamite that i can here someones hands moving in subtle motion and ill believe it...

peace
BLank

No that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that just because the difference isn't perceived after the recording, doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

You mentioned "preference" before. Well I prefer the sound of an Analogue EQ and compression over digital. I think the people who are fighting for the digital are usually the ones who haven't sat down with analogue gear. Either that, or they are making music which is purely clean and clinical electronica.

You dont need analoge everything... (Would be nice though!)

Digital is great.... I love it! It has afforded us flexibility, and unimaginable control..

But once I added that Studer front end, it took on a new sense and meaning

And also given me a superiority complex, and made me a snob! Cos I have heard good analogue....and now I dont wanna go back!

To be fair, I still havent heard the best converters yet.....

Not all digital is created equal either! There is good digital, and bad digital

Hehehe.....Blank, HC, and Jasedee going toe 2 toe!!!

I've got work to do guys.....stop posting!!!!!

:)

then why are you guys continually tryin to prove to me that its better...i couldnt care less...i made a comment that it was preference...and you are still tryin to prove that its better...and you still have not defined this texture jasedee...because i dont know how far you are going...its noise to me either way, if i record a drumset with a digital desk ill get the reverbaration on the release...but what are you talking about drumset on a digital desk, drumset on a analogue desk...tr606 on a digital desk or a tr606 on an analogue desk...each of those are different senarios

peace
Blank

EDIT Versus what?

Yep, I agree. I love digital too. Specially the price point for recording.

What it comes down to is that we are basicly making demos, that maybe in the future someone may want to re-record to a pro format. Chances are they will run our tracks through a shit load of gear to get a nice sound.

I'm happy having my digital recording studio for getting down my art, but I would never kid myself into thinking that it's better than a nice pro studio running good analogue outboard (like some people).

ok but at the same time i wouldnt kid myself into thinking that all pro studios will use analogue!! I am sure there are plenty of digital studios out there that are being used on recordings and no one is the wiser...I like to think if it this way...keep my mind open...i would like a professional sound engineer mix down my music in a professional sound studio...whether its digital or not is pointless...i just want it to sound good...and with that in mind...if you cant make a decent song you could use all the analogue gear in the world and still not make it...which is why i "prefer" to focus on making the music not mixing it down...as long as the levels are straight it works for me...and i know my shit doesnt sound pro...thats what pro studios do!!

peace
Blank

Na, only the good ones use analogue. :D

Silly Hollow...stupidity is for stupid ppl!! Let me take that away so you can think fully again!! LMAO!!! :wink:



peace
Blank

BTW that was TRIX cereal!!

Back in the day.....When they were using only analogue tape, you would lose some of the top end due to saturation, and the limits of the tape.

When digital first came on the scene, for once, people were hearing all that clarity in the peaks, and it was glorious. But what they werent listening for was digitals shortfalls...the other end! the quieter sounds were less focused, and blurry

And this is the area which contains all the texture, body, and "personality" of a sound...

Of course there are pro studios recording to digital....no-one is stupid enough to say otherwise, but they are also going through really high quality analogue preamps, neve EQ's, vintage outboard etc....

Even alot of people will track to tape, bounce into HD for editing/processing, then back into a really nice desk (Mmmm...Neve!) for mixdown. Even electronica based stuff (Prodigy) will bring it into a Pro studio for mixdown on an old Neve or SSL console....

Blank, I think unless you have experienced recording to Tape, using high quality preamps/EQ/outboard, you will never truly understand where we are coming from, or the importance that gear does have on great sound.

And yeah, opinions are just that, and we are all entitled to them. Im not saying you are wrong at all.....and Im definately not saying I am right.

There is a reason why a Manley Massive Passive costs US$10k, and why a parametric EQ plug in costs a few hundred.....

Been thinking about this myself recently and have been considering getting a apogee rosseta 800 96k with the big ben clock.

Never done this before so dont know much about it but have been reading up a little.

I produce dance music using mainly softsynths and my only hardware will be the virus TI when it comes. I have 2 powercores and 2 uads which I use for effects, mastering all in cubase sx3 and currently at 24/44 (hoping to goto either 24/88 or 24/96 in the next few months when I can afford a new daw)

My soundcard is an RME 9632 and I was thinking of coming out of this with lightpipe into the roesseta being converted and back into my daw via lightpipe again to be recorded....and everything being clocked by the bigben.

I think the RME can handle 4 stereo outs over the adat and the same back in, so im just wondering if this is the best way to set it all up?

I guess this would give me 4 buss' in cubase that I could route different elements of the song to for summing in the DA.

Is it best to send groups to the different buss's? Like percussion, strings/pads, leads, bass etc?

Is it best to do no mastering on those buss's until they are routed back into the sequencer?

If anyone has any info on how best to have it setup and arranged it would be appreciated greatly :)

ten

With the Apogee, if you were recording any analogue inputs, you would go into the apogee, and then via Lightpipe into the RME (A/D)

So, when recording your Ti, you could come out of the analogue outs, into the Apogee....but then this would make the whole USB thing a bit pointless?

As for mixdown....the best thing I could see would be to come from the RME lightpipe, into the apogee, then out into a mixer, then back into the apogee in stereo

Is that what you already said???? Im getting a bit lost....

Thats a very horrible assumption jasedee...how do you know what i have recorded with and what i have not recorded with? Is it because if i had i would completely agree with you? Seems a bit arrogent to think that!!So i hope thats not the reason!

Im going to leave you to your opinion because you are obviously overlly biased...you explaination of texture is still undefined...in this instanst you say texture is personality..if you were to say in the beginning that analogue give the sound personality...i would have said "what is personality"...we can flip flop words all day long it is still undefined...why i say this is because every word you have used is included in both digital and analogue recording...everything you have told me thus far has only strengthened my original opinion that it is preference!!

peace
Blank

Settle down folks.
I prefer to analog sum, I couldn't get enough level in dance music production with digital summing. I'd have to continually turn everything else down to get the head room for the kick and bass. Therefore putting most of the other tracks in lower bit land.
I did some tests, bought a decent pre-amp made a summing buss, now I can crank the power right up to top of each DA sub group and MY mixes sound much better now in solid copper wire - unbalanced into my discrete solid state pre-amp. I tried balanced, transformer coupled inputs, tube, behringer (ARGH!) and various cables to come up with MY preference for MY mixing style and MY quality outcome expectations.

This is not to say go ahead and mix digitally, thats up to YOU.
Due to the lack of DAs I own I have to submix alot to each subgroup.
To answer 'what should go into each sub group?' I distribute the bass elements equally to different subgroups. ie, kik to Stereo 1-2, bass1 to Stereo 3-4, bass2 to Stereo 5-6.
Same with high sounds; hats to Stereo 1-2, percussion to Stereo 7-8 etc.
Same with soft smooth pads or reverbs etc, split them up.
So in essence your squeezing each bit of performance out of each sub group DA.
Call me parranoid, but I also like to buss alot out of Cubase to my RME Total mix which is 48BIT and not 32BIT. The Asio drivers are a fixed 32BIT output so each track goes out at closest to digital clipping to the RME digital mixer where the tracks are subgrouped and levelled to each DA subgroup out.

the only reason you got so much crap off the rest of the posters here is that you used the term 'the only reason'.
Some of us here believe 'one other possible reason' could be summing in the real physical world is different in 'possibly many different ways'.
My Berhringer has less 'noise' than my Langevin. But it sounds shit. Digital summing has less noise than any analog mixer ever made! But It... sounds good, almost fantastic, all that silence and dither, just amazing. Could it all be good, or are there some trade offs?

It's like sitting on a leather imitation vinyl sofa, and saying 'this is a nice sofa' and just never buying another sofa. Then one day you sit in your friends real leather sofa and notice the way the leather breaths or bends or smells etc... then saying 'this is a nice sofa'. At the end of the day you could still go home get comfy back in your own sofa.

Well....I have come to the conclusions because of what I have used. I have a digital setup at home, with some good quality analogue gear, the best of both worlds really..

And then I have used some really nice gear...beautifully designed vintage analogue gear, and it sounds absolutely gorgeous. IMO, a hell of alot better than the digital gear I have used

I thought that summed up texture quite nicely... Didnt you????

Interesting topic...

I have had this discussion before on other forums. There are many viewpoints on it...

I personally perform my mixdown by sending the audio out from my sequencer (Cubase SL2) via my RME HDSP9632 audio outs straight back into the audio ins and record the input.

I find it sounds a little bit nicer.

Try it for yourselves it makes quite a difference.


Drammy

Jasedee did you not read what i wrote...you sumed up the definition of texture with a word swap, that does not constitute definition! Everything you have expressed shows that this idea of texture is your personal audible preference...

Because texture of sound to me is timbre, which inturn is the quality given to a sound by its overtones: the resonance by which the ear recognizes and identifies a voiced speech sound b : the quality of tone distinctive of a particular singing voice or musical instrument (websters dictionary)

if you take this into consideration even digital mixing can contain this...because...the sound source is where you get your timbre from...the mixing desk does not produce sound on its own...unless you have a grounding problem!! :wink:

as for personality...that has more validity when talking about themes and motives...

so please define this texture, which obviously stated can not be achieved by digital mixing alone...

as for my statement above, although misunderstood...i do apologized i didnt mean it in those terms...it was more in reference to one of the only reasons...because of course they are built a bit different...

peace
Blank