[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler wrote:

What I used to tell students was that if their console cost more than their=
car, they should use it for mixdown; otherwise, they should mix in the com=
puter. My rationale was that people who could afford a big, expensive conso=
le probably owned top-notch A/D and D/A converters, and so could do the ext=
ra conversion steps that mixing on an analog console entails. If they had r=
un-of-the-mill converters, they'd be better off digitizing at the beginning=
and staying digital throughout.=20

It's true that the conversion was the bottleneck for many years, although
these days cheap conversion has got to be pretty good.

Then again, I have driven cars that cost me less than a Shure M67, especially
when I was a student.

These days, though, good converters have gotten less expensive, so it makes=
more sense to mix analog. But really good analog mixers *haven't* gotten c=
heaper, while in-the-computer mixing adds less degradation to the signal th=
an it used to. So it really boils down to the user's preference.

With a typical festival gig, I am taking tracks that were recorded on a digital
system through an analogue mixer and onto 1/4" tape. It's just a mishmash of
technologies, but it works for the sound I want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."