Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Do we need mixers any more?

It seems to me that all we need anymore, is
enough channels of preamp with A/D, and enough
outs coming from the computer. After that,
whatever the mixer used to do, can be done in
the computer with software. I dug my 1402 Mackie,
but I took it out of my system once I got a
decent interface with enough ins/outs for what
I wanted to do.

I know that the tactile thing is nice, and we all like
to pull fader knobs up and down, but why add more
electronics anywhere around the computer interface
when it can all be done between the ins and outs?

I'm thinking more of studio or home recording
situations. Maybe live sound still has a place
for big mixing desks, but do they? Why not a
30" monitor, or that with maybe those midi sliders
that motorize to and fro?

What are the arguments for having a physical mixer,
and is that industry otherwise in trouble?

I went down to LA a while back to a small music software
show. The one company (can't remember, maybe it started with 'L')
that was pushing physical mixers had this whole speech
that reminded me of the articles we used to see about how the
engineers with true soul knew that we'd be using tape for
the best sound for some time to come. Down near the bottom,
you'd see a small BASF logo.

Just wondering: isn't the computer all we really need now,
given enough clean in/out ports? The mixers used to struggle
so much when it came to having enough busses. Now, any number
of ins can go to any variety of outs, mixed with the output
from the computer in any combination of ways that you'd like,
and the cost, due to the heavy involvement of software in
the process is a tiny fraction of what it would take to do
the same thing in analog.

Now I love seeing those eye candy pictures of the huge
studios with endless channels of faders and eq, but if
that tactile feedback is desired, wouldn't the midi controller
banks be a better fit now, since the actual audio signal
doesn't have to go through that hardware at all?

This feels like a thought I've previously expressed.
My apologies if it's so.

Thanks,

Tobiah






---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Nate Najar Nate Najar is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default Do we need mixers any more?

The avid front of house rigs are basically a large amount of AD and DA into a computer running a modified pro tools system with midi sliders for control. This rig is in many venues, large and small and is also being used on many major tours. It sounds fine. Of course my biggest issue with live sound isn't the equipment, but rather the preferences of the operators most of the time.

In a studio the biggest reason to have a mixer or a console is for routing. A commercial recording facility traditionally was designed to accommodate any eventuality of recording situation. In order to do that, you have to be able to send any signal anywhere without much fuss. Any "sound" the console has was unintentional on the part of the designers.

I am of the mind that prefers to get the mic signals into the AD as efficiently as possible and to use the right mic in the right place and not use too much processing etc... Basically I want as true and clean a signal as I can have. Many people do prefer the particular sound that certain mixers impart on the signal and will want a console intentionally for that sound. Keep in mind that most if not all of these mixers were designed for fidelity and to not "have a sound" but when you have that many components (like in an ssl 4000 for instance) touching the signal just so you can put that signal wherever you want, there will be casualties. Those casualties happen to have become a familiar sound to many however.

So no, you do not "need" a mixer anymore. Unless you do.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Do we need mixers any more?

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 6:44:41 PM UTC-6, Nate Najar wrote:

So no, you do not "need" a mixer anymore. Unless you do.


It's still the easiest road to true zero-latency monitoring.

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 computer. My rationale was that people who could afford a big, expensive console probably owned top-notch A/D and D/A converters, and so could do the extra conversion steps that mixing on an analog console entails. If they had run-of-the-mill converters, they'd be better off digitizing at the beginning and staying digital throughout.

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 cheaper, while in-the-computer mixing adds less degradation to the signal than it used to. So it really boils down to the user's preference.

Peace,
Paul
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Do we need mixers any more?

In article , Tobiah wrote:

I know that the tactile thing is nice, and we all like
to pull fader knobs up and down, but why add more
electronics anywhere around the computer interface
when it can all be done between the ins and outs?


Okay, IF you do all your processing in the box and there is absolutely no
analogue processing in the chain, there is no reason that you cannot work
today with a HUI or some other interface that is just a bunch of controls
interfaced to the DAW.

And, in fact, if you look inside a modern digital mixer, you'll find that
it's just a bunch of controls interfaced to a DSP processor.

Now, if you're doing analogue processing, and you still want to remain in
the "mix as performance" world where the mix is being done in realtime by
an operator rather than by automation envelopes, going with an analogue
console for mixing the DAW outputs can reduce the number of conversion stages
in your signal path and dramatically cut out on the amount of math you have
to do regarding conversion delays (since two channels with different signal
processing configurations will have different delay times).

I'm thinking more of studio or home recording
situations. Maybe live sound still has a place
for big mixing desks, but do they? Why not a
30" monitor, or that with maybe those midi sliders
that motorize to and fro?


Because in the live sound world it's very important to be able to pull down
a single fader immediately and make very rapid unplanned changes without
wasting several seconds paging through menus.

What are the arguments for having a physical mixer,
and is that industry otherwise in trouble?


I think the whole audio industry has been in trouble for the past decade.
Oh, well.

The thing about analogue mixers is that you can make your own from various
modules... get a 500-series frame, some 500-series preamps, some 500-series
eqs and faders... a little summing and routing wiring and you're there.

Just wondering: isn't the computer all we really need now,
given enough clean in/out ports? The mixers used to struggle
so much when it came to having enough busses. Now, any number
of ins can go to any variety of outs, mixed with the output
from the computer in any combination of ways that you'd like,
and the cost, due to the heavy involvement of software in
the process is a tiny fraction of what it would take to do
the same thing in analog.


A lot of it depends on the kind of work you're doing. Having only eight
tracks is sometimes a great salvation and a force to prevent overproduction.
On the other hand, sometimes it is a serious limitation that makes it very
difficult to accomplish what the producer has in his head.

The technology needed to do pop music and the technology needed to do classical
music, for example, are very different because the production techniques are
different because the demands placed by the music itself are different.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Do we need mixers any more?

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."


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Do we need mixers any more?

On 7/11/2014 9:05 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
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.


And for me, it saves a lot of time. I can use the DAW's processing to
work miracles on the tracks when needed, and still mix hands-on with no
control latency.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Do we need mixers any more?

In a studio the biggest reason to have a mixer or a console is for
routing. A commercial recording facility traditionally was designed
to accommodate any eventuality of recording situation. In order to
do that, you have to be able to send any signal anywhere without much
fuss.


Sure, but any interface I've had lately comes with a mixer that lets
you push any combination of inputs, + computer outputs into any
combination of hardware outputs. The DAW software adds even more
to this routing matrix. It's like having a mixer with as many buses
as it has inputs. I don't see a mixer adding anything over an audio
interface with the same number of input channels as the mixer. Now in
order to get as many input channels as a large mixer, you would probably
have to chain
more than one interface, but this can be done, and at a lower cost I'm
sure than a huge mixing desk.

Tobiah

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Do we need mixers any more?


(since two channels with different signal
processing configurations will have different delay times).


I'm surprised at that. Whatever processing has to be done,
however many effects may be on a channel, if I were writing
the software I'd take an input buffer, and do whatever math
I needed to on it, and then send it out, all at the same time?

Similarly, people are talking about control latency, but aren't
we just talking about the buffer size here? I've been running
solid with a 4ms buffer (96k x 256 samples) and that's with
a USB interface. Isn't that the length of time you'd have to
wait to hear your changes to a fader. Pretty good response I'd
say. I should note that I'm talking about 10 tracks usually.

Thanks,

Tobiah

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Do we need mixers any more?

On 7/11/2014 7:53 PM, Tobiah wrote:
Similarly, people are talking about control latency, but aren't
we just talking about the buffer size here? I've been running
solid with a 4ms buffer (96k x 256 samples) and that's with
a USB interface. Isn't that the length of time you'd have to
wait to hear your changes to a fader. Pretty good response I'd
say. I should note that I'm talking about 10 tracks usually.


I haven't come up with a way to measure it, but on every DAW I've ever
pushed a fader or turned an EQ knob on, there's been a very noticeable
delay, I'd guess at least 100 ms, maybe more. I don't think this is
related to the sample rate, it's likely a function of how many other
things the program is doing at the time. It just takes a while to get
its attention, or so it seems.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tom McCreadie Tom McCreadie is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Do we need mixers any more?

Tobiah wrote:

What are the arguments for having a physical mixer,
and is that industry otherwise in trouble?


An often-overlooked advantage that a software mixer can have over its physical
rival is the greater degree of freedom and independence in applying gain at
different points down the audio chain.

To quote from the RME Totalmix User's guide: "The hardware input signal can be
passed on as often as desired, even with different levels. This is a big
difference to conventional mixing desks, where the channel fader always controls
the level for all routing destinations simultaneously."
--
Tom McCreadie

Tinnitus is a pain in the neck


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Do we need mixers any more?

In article ,
Tom McCreadie wrote:
To quote from the RME Totalmix User's guide: "The hardware input signal
can be passed on as often as desired, even with different levels. This
is a big difference to conventional mixing desks, where the channel
fader always controls the level for all routing destinations
simultaneously."


Which is why a decent mixer allows the choice of pre or post?

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Do we need mixers any more?

On 7/12/2014 7:15 AM, Tom McCreadie wrote:

An often-overlooked advantage that a software mixer can have over its physical
rival is the greater degree of freedom and independence in applying gain at
different points down the audio chain.

To quote from the RME Totalmix User's guide: "The hardware input signal can be
passed on as often as desired, even with different levels. This is a big
difference to conventional mixing desks, where the channel fader always controls
the level for all routing destinations simultaneously."


Huh? Hasn't whoever wrote that for RME ever heard of pre- and
post-fader routing?

I'll concede that a DAW is more flexible in this respect than a simple
PA mixer, but unless I misunderstood the question and the answer, it's
certainly not a generalization. One place where digital mixing has an
advantage over analog hardware, if they do the math right, is that
internal headroom can be pretty much ignored. In the early days, if you
had summed two channels that hit full scale simultaneously, your mix was
clipped. With 32- or 64-bit internal processing, the sum can be much
greater than the nominal full scale value and brought down to where it
needs to be when needed.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tom McCreadie Tom McCreadie is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Do we need mixers any more?

Dave Plowman wrote:

To quote from the RME Totalmix User's guide: "The hardware input signal
can be passed on as often as desired, even with different levels. This
is a big difference to conventional mixing desks, where the channel
fader always controls the level for all routing destinations
simultaneously."


Which is why a decent mixer allows the choice of pre or post?


But it goes beyond a simple pre vs post issue: in certain scenarios involving
multiple splitting, reassignment and level-adjustment of signals, I find
software can often allow a more complex - yet quicker - patching...while
providing a clear overview of signal assignments, levels and interdependencies.
--
Tom McCreadie

Sudden Death Syndrome? Sounds serious - what are the symptoms?"
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Do we need mixers any more?

Tom McCreadie wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

To quote from the RME Totalmix User's guide: "The hardware input signal
can be passed on as often as desired, even with different levels. This
is a big difference to conventional mixing desks, where the channel
fader always controls the level for all routing destinations
simultaneously."


Which is why a decent mixer allows the choice of pre or post?


But it goes beyond a simple pre vs post issue: in certain scenarios involving
multiple splitting, reassignment and level-adjustment of signals, I find
software can often allow a more complex - yet quicker - patching...while
providing a clear overview of signal assignments, levels and interdependencies.


This is true, and it basically comes down to one thing: dynamic range.

With a high end analogue console where the rails are running on very high
voltages and the noise levels are low, you can be very sloppy about
internal gain structures and get away with it. It's not like mixing on
a Mackie.

But with a digital console where everything inside the box is being
represented by 32-bit floating point values you have a whole lot MORE
usable dynamic range than you did even with the high end analogue console
and that means that you can pretty much ignore the issues and just worry
about the total system gain without worry about overloading anything
internally or dropping too close to the noise floor.

Not that this was not the case with some earlier digital consoles that
used 24-bit fixed-point arithmetic inside, and some of those were very
very touchy about gain structures. Things are better now.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Do we need mixers any more?

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/11/2014 7:53 PM, Tobiah wrote:
Similarly, people are talking about control latency, but aren't
we just talking about the buffer size here? I've been running
solid with a 4ms buffer (96k x 256 samples) and that's with
a USB interface. Isn't that the length of time you'd have to
wait to hear your changes to a fader. Pretty good response I'd
say. I should note that I'm talking about 10 tracks usually.


I haven't come up with a way to measure it, but on every DAW I've ever
pushed a fader or turned an EQ knob on, there's been a very noticeable
delay, I'd guess at least 100 ms, maybe more. I don't think this is
related to the sample rate, it's likely a function of how many other
things the program is doing at the time. It just takes a while to get
its attention, or so it seems.


For lack of a better term, it's mainly debounce. Especially with mouse
clicks/slides.

--
Les Cargill


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Do we need mixers any more?

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 7/11/2014 9:05 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: 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.

And for me, it saves a lot of time. I can use the DAW's processing to work
miracles on the tracks when needed, and still mix hands-on with no control
latency.


+1

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Older Generation Digital Consoles was Do we need mixers anymore?

On 7/12/2014 3:38 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Judging by some of the
specs of these supposedly 24 bit consoles, there really didn't seem to be 24 bits
inside, but something less (18? 20?), with the extra bits perhaps being used for the
results of larger multiplies. Is that the case? Or did they just bit-shift and let
the LSBs fall off?


How are you judging? By the S/N or dynamic range specifications? When
it comes to the real world, everything goes in as 21 or 22 real bits (a
24-bit A/D converter on a good day) and has to go out through a 24-bit
D/A converter (because that's all we have).

As Scott and I have mentioned, with 32 bits or more of space for words
to grow when being processed, and allows you to sum a whole bunch of
24-bit streams without truncation or overflow. For example, when I
reviewed a PreSonus StudioLive digital console, I put up 16 channels of
(just to be on the safe side) -0.1 dBFS channels, turned all the faders
all the way up, and the master meters were well off the scale and the
analog output was horribly clipped as you'd expect. But turning down the
master fader so the meters were back on scale and the THD at the analog
output was just a couple of thousandths of a percent greater than any
one channel playing alone. That's really impressive.

Of course you still have to worry about clipping the inputs, but once
you're there, you don't really need to worry about clipping an internal
mix bus. Of course you still need to watch out for limits on plug-ins.
If you sum all your drums and have peaks that (if it worked this way)
were +10 dBFS or so and try to run them through a compressor plug-in,
you'd need to drop that back so that you were feeding the compressor
with something under 0 dBFS peaks. So you still can't be sloppy when
things get more complicated than mixing.

Just guessing, but it seems that given two not so great choices, the one with the
smaller but untruncated word might be better sonically than fixed truncation steps,
especially if your input level was low (for whatever operator oversight -- perhaps
the reason for paying careful attention to gain structure).


I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but you really shouldn't
operate a digital mixer any differently than you'd operate an analog
mixer. In the real world, with real world signals, you can truncate a
32-bit audio word to 24 bits without applying dither and not have it
sound bad. Some mixers may use dither at the master fader. I know that
this was a big deal in Pro Tools a few years back when they figured it
out, but now people are saying that with the mixer in PT10 and 11,
selecting the dithered mixer adds things that you don't hear when you
use the just plain ol' mixer (that they seem to have done right).

But I dunno. I'm not one to listen for "artifacts" so I don't hear them.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Older Generation Digital Consoles was Do we need mixers any more?

Mike Rivers writes:

On 7/12/2014 3:38 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Judging by some of the
specs of these supposedly 24 bit consoles, there really didn't seem to be 24 bits
inside, but something less (18? 20?), with the extra bits perhaps being used for the
results of larger multiplies. Is that the case? Or did they just bit-shift and let
the LSBs fall off?


How are you judging? By the S/N or dynamic range specifications? When


DNR specs (-109) and for a digital console, lousy cross talk (-80, which I assume
must be happening in the analog front ends and D-A outputs).

Just guessing, but it seems that given two not so great choices, the one with the
smaller but untruncated word might be better sonically than fixed truncation steps,
especially if your input level was low (for whatever operator oversight -- perhaps
the reason for paying careful attention to gain structure).


I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but you really shouldn't
operate a digital mixer any differently than you'd operate an analog


Agreed.

Multiple operators use the old Yamaha M7CL in a theater where I do the occasional
live sound gig.

When I got there last year, I thought the system sounded pretty bad. As I grew to
know the system as a whole, it seemed that one key reason was that the lead operator
ran preamp gains very low, with the master faders at zero (plus input faders at -10
to -20). With those low preamp trims, the equivalent "0 VU" was around a -50 through
the console. Inputs barely flicker the -60 channel meter LED.

The whole system has excess gain for what we normally do, on the order of 30 dB. In
part this is because of the long-standing stupid practice of running power amp gains
wide open. I'm chipping away at this, and later next fall might convince the
political powers to trim those amps more rationally. (In spite of this, the system
has a low noise floor; my issue is with distorsion from running so "low in the
mud" through the console.)

One victory was to get the output bus trims down -10 dB. That helps a little, but my
preference is to run the masters at a -15 to a -20 and increase the head amp gains
by 10 to 20 dB. Input metering is then more rational. I also run channel faders
around 0, and then overall it sounds wayyyy better. I am assuming the master faders
are dithered but that dither likely does not occur elsewhere.

The sonic difference is noticeable; slowly but surely this is sinking in on other
operators. But in making a convincing case, I've been assuming that internally the
console is something less than 24 bit, with summing maxed at 24 bit. So the question
is what is the architecture? Given the age and relatively low price point, it's no
Euphonics with an 80 bit summing bus (IIRC) -- so Yamaha is doing many tricks to
pack a good punch for the buck on for-its-day limited silicon -- but you have to be
very careful about things like gain.

I suspect the other operator is happy with low levels because he doesn't hear any
hum or buzz, but does not yet fully grasp how much better the thing sounds with a
more rational grain structure while going through all the channel strip DSP.

So, my goal is to better understand the architecture in order to create more
convincing arguments. With some folks in the PA world, ears aren't enough. If
gearheads, they want gearhead arguments. (As the only recording guy to use that
system, I sometimes get teased for "hearing too much". It's good natured, but does
summarize what I'm pushing against.)

Anyway.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Older Generation Digital Consoles was Do we need mixers any more?

Frank Stearns wrote:

Been trying to figure these out as a point of curiosity. Judging by some of the
specs of these supposedly 24 bit consoles, there really didn't seem to be 24 bits
inside, but something less (18? 20?), with the extra bits perhaps being used for the
results of larger multiplies. Is that the case? Or did they just bit-shift and let
the LSBs fall off?


I think in the case of the Yamaha consoles they were pretty much 24 bits
inside, but that doing the equalization with fixed-point 24 bit arithmetic
and doing the attenuation or amplification at the fader were the main
limitations of the resolution. Depending on how the fader was set, your
resolution may have been pretty good or pretty bad.

And I am pretty sure at least the first generation of Yamaha consoles just
truncated and didn't do any dither, so as you turned the level down with
the fader, more and more LSBs just fell off.

And the zipper noise of the fader didn't help matters any either.

Just guessing, but it seems that given two not so great choices, the one with the
smaller but untruncated word might be better sonically than fixed truncation steps,
especially if your input level was low (for whatever operator oversight -- perhaps
the reason for paying careful attention to gain structure).

Thoughts? Enlightenment?


No enlightenment. Bob Katz might have some, he was a beta tester for the
early Yamahas as I recall.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Do we need mixers any more?

Tobiah wrote:

In a studio the biggest reason to have a mixer or a console is for
routing. A commercial recording facility traditionally was designed
to accommodate any eventuality of recording situation. In order to
do that, you have to be able to send any signal anywhere without much
fuss.


Sure, but any interface I've had lately comes with a mixer that lets
you push any combination of inputs, + computer outputs into any
combination of hardware outputs. The DAW software adds even more
to this routing matrix. It's like having a mixer with as many buses
as it has inputs. I don't see a mixer adding anything over an audio
interface with the same number of input channels as the mixer. Now in
order to get as many input channels as a large mixer, you would probably
have to chain
more than one interface, but this can be done, and at a lower cost I'm
sure than a huge mixing desk.


Yeah, but depending on the size of a session you might be still looking
at that screen handling all that routing while the guy with the console
has already begun tracking.

Much of this discussion hangs on how many musicians must be tracked at
once, and the cost of those out on the floor. Put many out there and
that console is very much cheaper than the cost of the players, etc.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Do we need mixers any more?

On 7/12/2014 9:28 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Yeah, but depending on the size of a session you might be still looking
at that screen handling all that routing while the guy with the console
has already begun tracking.

Much of this discussion hangs on how many musicians must be tracked at
once, and the cost of those out on the floor. Put many out there and
that console is very much cheaper than the cost of the players, etc.


That, and that people have vast ideas of how complicated a project needs
to get before it's done. I record five or ten tracks, fix a few things,
mix them with maybe a little EQ and compression, and it's done. I
understand the difference between a photographer and an artist. I'm more
of a photographer.

Like a photographer who decides, before he takes a picture, the type of
film to use, the lighting, framing, and background, I make sure I have
the right tools, pick out mics, put them in the right place, hear a
little music, make a few adjustments, and then SNAP. If the photo isn't
right, the photographer perhaps tries another day, or another time of
day for different lighting, or decides that this picture isn't worth
taking. For me, if the music isn't happening, I try it another day, or
with another band and don't try to keep all the things that aren't right
in hopes that I can make something good from it later. .

The artist gets an idea, starts with an empty canvas, and keeps adding
and removing details until he's satisfied. I don't have the patience for
that.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USB Mixers mcp6453[_2_] Pro Audio 7 September 22nd 10 04:09 AM
Looking for Mixers Brent Lestage Pro Audio 0 April 26th 10 04:19 PM
soundcraft mixers David Grant Pro Audio 0 November 24th 06 07:35 PM
FS: Toa D4 & D4E mixers $99 Gene Larson Marketplace 0 July 29th 06 07:28 PM
mic gain and mixers Sidhu Pro Audio 38 September 1st 04 10:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"