Why do we keep looking to gear as the difference maker between a good and a bad mix? Or a good and a great mix for that matter?
Nothing confuses me more than to see the ongoing debates about mixing in-the-box (i.e. with plugins) vs. out-of-the-box with a console or analog summing. It’s so not the point that it’s not worth making a big deal over it.
And yet the debates rage on – sigh.
Regardless, today I want to simply bring another example to the table of how in-the-box mixing is just as legit of a platform as the big boy analog desks many of us revere. Let’s talk about Ken Andrews.
Via Matt Biddulph Flickr
Just Listen To The Mix
I was at the NAMM show a few days ago and one of my favorite mixers, Ken Andrews, was being interviewed by Dave Pensado at the Avid booth. Ken is a songwriter, producer, artist, and mixer who has worked with Nine Inch Nails, Beck, Chris Cornell, Blink 182, Tenacious D and many others.
In fact, one of my favorites is the Army of Anyone record (The guys from STP and frontman of Filter got together for one album) but I digress.
A couple of years ago, Ken was asked to join a mix shootout for the then upcoming Paramore record. He famously (in mixing geek circles) won the “audition” and ended up mixing the whole record.
During the interview at NAMM, Dave asked him to talk about the shootout, and one detail stood out to me more than anything else: of the 5 mixes in the shootout, all but his were done by A list mixers on analog consoles. Ken’s was the only all digital, in-the-box mix.
The label and the band sat in a room for about an hour and listened to all 5 mixes blind (with each being labeled by a single letter A-E) and simply chose the one they liked the most.
Everyone in the room unanimously picked mix “C” which was Ken’s.
This was good news for Ken’s career, but it is also interesting news for us aspiring in-the-box mixers.
They Picked His Mix Because It Was Better
The reason I thought this was interesting, and why I’m sharing it with you here is because there is a huge lesson to learn.
Why did the band and label pick Ken’s mix?
Since it was a blind mix there was no bias that would sway them. No name, no information about how it was mixed, no visual stimuli, nothing. All that was available was the stereo mix (level matched by the way).
So again, why did the band and label pick Ken’s mix over the others?
Because it was the better mix.
Period.
In that moment, everyone in the room used their ears and made a simple decision that mix “C” sounded better to them.
Gear Is Not The Difference Maker
And isn’t that the point? That all that matters is how a mix sounds? Not how it arrived at that sound, but that how it sounds in the end.
I’m not making the point that in-the-box mixing is better than analog mixing. Hardly. It’s simply one way to get a great mix. Gear is not the point. It’s just a tool.
Use what you like. Don’t use what you don’t like. We all have our opinions.
But never make gear the difference maker in your mind, because it’s not the difference maker in real life. Your decision making and taste as a mixer is the difference maker.
It sure was for Ken Andrews and the Paramore mix. All five engineers used the same tracks, so the only difference was the mix. And in the end, one was favored over the other. Simple as that.
So I have to ask you: “What lies about gear and the role it plays in your recordings and mixes are you believing? And how are they holding you back from making the music you really want to make?”
Do Not Create Another Song Until You Read This Guide
(Price: $17 Free Today)
Discover the 6 Steps for Creating a Radio-Worthy Song From Scratch
My name is Graham Cochrane and I'm the founder of The Recording Revolution, one of the world's most loved audio recording and mixing blogs with over 200,000 readers each month. 
One more great ITB story. Definitely, there is something behind notes, gear and attitudes people listening. We all know what is it.
Great Post Graham,
I constantly run this argument through my head when I look at my Mackie cr-1604 into a Edirol UA-1A – into my mac mini. The Mackie is around 20 years old, and the UA-1A is RCA to USB!!!! —-but it is 24 bit 44.1 so I figure it does what it needs to do. The sound is clean and clear – I have direct preamp access on the Mackie – and since I mostly record Classical Guitar, Djembe, Violin, and Voice, that is exactly what I want.
When I see all these beautiful interfaces, I just remind myself that the folks who are buying my CD’s and download my tracks don’t care how the sound was recorded. They just like the way it sounds. Thank you for reminding people that is all that really matters.
Peace.
Probably the most valuable lesson I ever learned in my early production days was this:
If it sounds right, it is right.
Man that was a game changer for me. As you said, Graham, it doesn’t matter *how* you get to the final result, as long as it’s good.
It’s easier to think that if we just figure out how to do each thing the right way, use all the right gear, and learn all the right tricks, that we can get professional mixes. What we fail to realize is that mixing is an *art*. It takes time. It takes practice. It takes skill. But once you have put in the hours and have gotten good at it, you can churn out a great mix using basically whatever equipment you’re given. Sure, better gear can help, sometimes even help a lot, but it’s not the “answer”.
Thanks Graham. Inspiring, as always 🙂
Alex
What lies about gear and the role it plays in your recordings and mixes are you believing? And how are they holding you back from making the music you really want to make?
Having to have a room ”sound treated”.
When recording vocals or acoustic guitars, or anything that isn’t plugged directly into the interface bugs me.
I think if only I had my room specially treated for sound it would be better.
Mmm… it does make a difference. Of course, it’s not strictly necessary, but if you’re at the point where the sound of the room in your recordings is bothering you, definitely start thinking about acoustic treatment.
Personally, I built my own (and I’m not a handyman). It wasn’t terribly difficult, and it saved a *lot* of money.
If you have some money to throw at it, I think the Auralex kits are fantastic, based on what others have told me.
Placement is important too. You can get away with pretty minimal treatment if you put it in the right places.
If you’re interested, I wrote a blog post a while back about how to get started with acoustic treatment (you can click on my name above to get to it). Also, Graham, and Joe over at Home Studio Corner, both have great articles about it if you search around. There are also lots of tutorials out there on how to build your own panels, if that’s the route you want to take.
Good luck!
Thanks for the tips!
No problem! 🙂
In my experience the untreated room doesn’t prevent you from getting a good mix but it can add time to the project because, personally, I’d have to keep running back to fix things when I referenced them elsewhere. If treating your room isn’t an option I recommend three hacks
1. Reference your mixes in the car, on your ipod, on a home stereo etc. to see if there is anything amiss. The main difference you’ll notice between your mixes and the ‘pro’ mastered mixes is volume. Your mixes should sound almost as good pre mastered as they do mastered. They should be 90% there.
2. Listen on a good set of headphones. Headphones don’t give the most accurate picture of how the song will sound in the outside world but there will be zero influence from the sound of your room.
3. In both of the above mixes, reference a PRO mix that you like in the SAME KEY as the song you are working on. You will learn a lot about how your mix sounds vs. how you want your mix to sound and as long as you trust the reference mix you’ll get closer. Remember to turn the reference mix down though as it is mastered and will invariably be louder than yours.
Thanks for the hacks advice. It will be used.
Greatest advice I ever heard, and if I’m not mistaken, it came from Graham, was that when ppl listen to a song U never hear them say “I love how they use an pultec eq on this track”
So true! Go for the big wins, not the minutiae 🙂
Great point well made!
The person handling the tools (be it analogue gear, in-the-box, or a hybrid setup) has way more impact on the end result than anything else. Period!
Hi Garham,
Great post as usual, I have been following for a while, and i must say before i was told by people to dont blame gear, and i was told also that gear plays a big role (yes of course), but i feel that many of us (me included in the past) dont really understand how powerful are our DAWS and tools if we know how to use them.
I heard great mixes coming out from audacity amd all the processors amd “plugins” included.
I feel that software has come a long way, like you say nowdays you can find gear really really cheap, the same gear that maybe in the 70s used to cost a bomb.
You managed to proof me wrong when i saw that video where you record a full song with only a behringer mic and a 2ch cheap interface all in a laptop.
My passion for audio turned on again, and I’ve been achieving great results being real harsh on myself without blaming my gear and now i really see results, by using stock plugins and the old cubase 5 I owned, and i dont really feel i need to upgrade anything because i really feel comfortable right now.
Good work and thank you for sharing all these informations is really helping me tonface the reality and to become better and better day by day!
Cheers !
Giorgio
Awesome Giorgio!
So the mix was entirely in the box. No analog gear used in I/0 for anything? That’s what I find to be uniquely interesting. I find analog sounds better. That being said, I’ve not used the LA-2A because it didn’t sound better than plugins, but, going through the nerve 551 made it sound amazing. No other plugin in gave the track more depth. I’m not using a console, just inserting analog gear sometimes.
Actually, being a scientist (mixing is only my hobby) I have to say that from the fact that Ken did his mix ITB does not mean that digital summing is better than analog summing. Maybe Ken’s mix would have even sounded better if he had used analog summing. But, this story certainly makes the point that digital summing can be better than analog summing based on your skills, i.e. skills are more important than gear.
I recently participated in an on-line vote to distinguish the digitally summed mix from the analog summed mix (they just ran the digital mix through an analog summing box). It was quite easy to distinguish the two mixes and most people got it right. But, this says nothing about which mix was better. To me, analog summing puts a certain color to the mix. I can get a really similar color by applying analog modeling plug-ins on my mix bus, e.g. Slate’s VBC. So, I get comparable results without any analog gear, entirely ITB.
There was also a study if people prefer analog summing over digital summing based on different genres (I don’t remember where I read this). It turns out that for classical music people prefer digital summing because it is cleaner. For Rock music, on the other hand, they preferred analog summing. There was a third genre (I think it was Pop) where analog and digital summing were tied. The best advice I can give is to think about your genre and what analog summing/analog plug-ins will do to your mix. Is it favorable? If not then just leave it alone. First improve your mixing skills before buying any analog gear. Don’t waste your money on analog gear because it will not magically give you good mixes if you don’t understand what you are doing. As Graham always says: Skills are more important than gear.
Cheers,
Simon
Hi Simon – I agree. And in fact, I did not say in the article that this proves that digital summing is better. It proves that it is just as viable as analog. Not better, not worse, just different. Or better yet, a non issue.
Thankyou Graham. Just what we needed to see, this will boost my morale. There is no confirmation bias here, there is only facts. Blind tests always tell the tale where listening is involved, and this is a big tale i needed to hear. Now i can sit-down at my DAW with more confidence. Cheers.
Great post Graham!
I have this battle in mind daily. I look at analog consoles all the time in awe saying to myself, “I should get this console and run my Pro Tools session through it and mix OTB to get a warmer sound and get my hands-on knob turning and fader manipulation.” Only to come back to thinking about all the time, practice, and research I’ve put into mixing ITB in Pro Tools and using my Navation SL mkii control surface which gives some hands-on feel; and realizing that I’ve gotten decent at churning out good mixes. Also I realize I have to keep practicing with my current gear to master it. I record my vocals into a Tascam DP-24 with a ART tube preamp and then transfer them into my Pro Tools session. I guess if want the hands-on feeling of analog I can mix on my DP-24 or my Boss Br-1600.
Hey I was curious about how well you like working with your tascam dp24 with pro tools I ask because I have one too and have been mixing with just it alone with pretty good success. But things like limited eq and limited effects and having to bounce tracks sometimes seem to make something that is probably a relatively quick edit on a daw a little more time consuming and difficult on the tascam but I like being able to record eight tracks simultaneously. So I want to get with the times and get some software would I need an interface if I had my tascam. And is is it fairly easy to pick up where you left off on the tascam while on protools
Trust your ears. Trust yourself.
The problem is this…
People used to mixing out of the box and particularly those who always used top notch gear are used to what that envitonment sounds like and how it behaves. When they try to work in the box they don’t accept that they are in a completely new environment. So they pull in emulations of gear (plugins) that they are familiar with but this only makes things worse. The BF76 does NOT sound or behave in a manner even remotely close to a real 1176… But no two 1176s sound the same either!!! That is the excellent thing about real gear and the “sound” of the great analog mixing engineers. When they find a piece of gear that they like then it goes with them everywhere and becomes part of their “sound”. This is not the case when mixing in the box. My UAD 1176 plugin sounds like yours and that guy’s over there. But this is great for consistency and the ability to work anywhere. When working with plugins or in the box in any way you need to LISTEN to what things sound like and not use a plugin because it’s analog predecessor was great for doing this particular thing and expect to get the same results. Listen to what it actually does and use it for its strengths.
I work both in and out of the box and I get good results in both environments but my technique changes depending on which world I am working in. I will say this… It takes me less “work” and less “processing” to get my results when mixing in the analog world. This mostly has to do with saturation and distortion that “lives” in analog gear so where as in the box I have to use a tape plugin, then 1176, then some sort of valve type saturation to get the warmth I am after (and that is just on one channel). In the analog world I just mix from tape and insert an 1176 on my console. All the saturation is there. I don’t have to dial it in.
I get my best in the box mixes when I stop trying to create a sound that it won’t give me.
Also with analogue gear you make adjustments to the base sound. As analogue-like plug-ins also has a base sound once you’ve set it up and you can make templates with all those analogue like plugins set up and ready to go I don’t see how that is different from real analogue gear from that perspective.
Granted if you really feel the OTB experience gives stuff you can get ITB, then so be it. But setting up analogue gear also takes time in my experience if it’s not already set up the way you want it.
I’ve been striving for sonic excellence since I started on the journey to record and mix MY OWN material. I’ve read and viewed a lot of blogs, posts, etc…. I’ve bought and sold pieces of gear down the way. One thing I can tell you is….analog summing provides a distinct sonic separation, spatial width and clarity for monitoring that pure signal path. Now, what you choose to do with that clear signal path in post production is entirely up to you and your skills. That sonic clarity and separation can easily be tarnished with bad mix decisions. It’s also important to realize the significant role a good ADC or DAC plays in the signal chain.
To summarize…. a good ITB mix, by a good ITB mixer is exactly that. A good ITB mix! However, I can tell you from many days, weeks, months of trial and error signal chain experiments…16 ch’s of analog summing definitely makes a difference…and makes achieving a great mix that much easier with it’s clarity characteristics. Sound is so subjective…it doesn’t really matter in the end how or what. What matters is who’s listening, what mood they’re in while listening, and what are they gonna listen to the next day. Is it gonna be your killer analog summed mix? Or the next guy’s killer ITB mix? Or both?
My friend who’s studying studio mixing in Helsinki, is always talkin about what new plugins ang gear he needs. When i told him i’ going to buy a cond. mic for vocal recording, he wahs shockd when i told him about considering rode NT1-A. He started heavy preaching about how i can’t get good quality audio with that mic, and my behringer x32 console connected to my pc, and gave me long list full of terribly expensive gear, from 1000€ external card to way too many thousand euros costing mics.
I’ts so encouraging to see that expensive gear isn’t what’s all about, and i really can get the sound i want without spending tens of thousands of euros to gear. I humbly thank you for your great and inspiring work, you are really a great blessing to every sound engineer, who’s willing to listen. Thank you!
Aw man. I hate it when people do things like that. I think Graham has done a pretty darn good job of *showing* us that it’s simply not true.
Sure, maybe if your friend could tell you that he’s tried an NT1A, and there were some real problems that he had with it in his circumstance, *that* would be useful information. But I really don’t understand the motive of people who just want to tell you that your choice is poor simply because of their unprofessional opinion. That’s just beyond me. It’s discouraging, and not even remotely helpful.
I say go for it, man! I’m not made of money either, and have pretty budget gear, and I’m making music that I’m proud of. You can do the same!
Well , all that said ,but are we missing something here? Isn’t the “box” itself a gear or hardware as we call it ? Ok , my point is that having the propper “box” at start is important so we can stick to it. Further more if we’d ask Ken on what setup he made his mixes his answer propably would be “hi spec computer (either Mac or Pc) . So by meaning harware let’s not forget about basis . Propper box is a start point.
As always, an inspiring and motivating post.
Quick question to fellow subscribers….is anyone else out there doing things on an iPad? If so, how do you feel about the strengths and weaknesses of the iOS DAWs? I work on Cubasis and I have really begun to feel comfortable on it. The main hurdle for me (aside from my own inexperience) is the iPad’s relatively low CPU capacity. However, in a very Cochranian twist, I almost see that as an advantage, in that it forces me to be selective and minimalist when it comes to plugins and all that. I’m really grateful for this post and others in how it has inspired me to make and put out some decent sounding stuff instead of waiting on the chance to get into the big studios.
Anyway, good stuff everybody!
Skill is the determining factor in getting a great mix.
This is the analogy I like to use. I’m decent at mixing. Chris Lord Alge is amazing at mixing.
Put me in front of his SSL and him in front of a computer with Logic or Pro Tools and ONLY stock plugins.
His mix will sound better. His mix will sound better because he’s got far more skill and experience. He knows exactly what a good mix should sound like and he knows exactly how to use the basic tools of EQ and Compression to get it regardless of whether it’s a stock Logic Compressor or a vintage LA2A.
Great post Graham! First of all, I’m glad you talked about the Army of Anyone album. One of my favorite too! That drum solo at the end of “Goodbye”…but I disgress!
I was thinking of how interresting it you be to have your opinion on professional albums that are exemples of a good mix and mastering job and, on the other hand, what could be consider as bad mixing and why.
I like to analyse what makes a record sound great and how to apply it in my mixing.
Thanks,
Martin
I think digital has come a long way in comparison with what it was ten years ago and I certainly believe you can go all the way with digital these days – that’s why I prefer ITB myself, to avoid all the constraints, as well as the additional clutter and hustle of recording through analog gear and miking everything, especially inside an apartment, and considering I have no experience at miking at all.
Question is: can you get the same ‘goodness’ – roundness, contours, tamed and clean highs – on digital as you get on analog gear – if that’s what you’re after, of course? I think you can get very similar results, to begin with. And I believe, with some experience and trying things until you figure them out, you can get almost undistinguishable results. It’s just so much easier to get that sound on analog gear, that’s all – mix wise. And more difficult to record a good sound, engineering wise – with miking and stuff – at least for me. But I believe analog, if you get recording right, gives you that warmth, punch and contour right away, with a lot less need to touch anything in the mix, as you said yourself.
I’m struggling these days to get the ‘great analog’ sound ITB, to a point where there’s no ‘digital flavour’ to it at all, and I’m getting there, but slowly and painstakingly so. And I remember when we recorded – my former band and I – some instrumental tracks through a mixing console – home made by somebody – but WITH MIKING. Basically, of the two loudspeakers we used to play through, out of the console (with built-in amp), one we put 95% of the sound through, for monitoring, and the second one, at maybe 5% of the volume, we stuck a cheap microfone in front of, that went to tape. That was the technical solution to capture what we were playing, since the console had no aux outs. Result: the sound on tape was… just as you hear it on records – not in quality, but in warmth, depth, contour, all that. It reminded me of the sound on Fleetwood Mac’s The Chain. Great stuff obtained only by miking a speaker! Complete surprise. But I’m sticking to ITB and hope to get there this way – for constraints, miking lack of experience and the ability to experiment with sound a lot more easily and freely afterwards. And feel I’m slowly getting closer.
But of course, there’s no OBLIGATION to get that analog sound at all. In fact, I think, in about one generation, kids won’t even have a taste for the sound we love so much – they take digital in with all naturalness, without even feeling ‘there’s something wrong with it’ – even if we guys that listen to the old stuff have clear (maybe more educated – sic!) preference – or maybe just an acquired taste, although I feel it’s not entirely a question of mere subjectivity.
So, in my opinion, fist of all, digital is valid, as a separate character, by itself. With regard to ‘that’ sound it’s still as valid with more mixing adroitness involved, whereas analog recording gives you instant results – with more recording ‘adroitness’, real life constraints and some limits in experimentation. So, I guess it just depends on the road anyone would choose, but great result are attainable by both.
Nice example. Take care!
What a truly inspiring article. I have been so sick for the past few days and haven’t even logged into my email. When I did today, I found this article and it confirmed everything I’ve been feeling and hearing about my mixes. Will I be winning any grammy awards soon? Very doubtful. Still, in the short time I have been mixing, I have already reached a level where the people around me are marveling at the sound I am getting. All of this in the box, with minimal gear other than the stock plugins that came with my DAW. I did manage to get the Waves gold bundle for $200 recently, which I jumped on. This, because I knew I did need certain plugins that I didn’t have in order to to achieve certain tasks in my mixes. However, my purchases end there for a good while. I am now going to spend my time working with the gear I have and learning to kick butt with it.
Your website was the first I found when I decided I wanted to mix. You, in tandem with all of the other great mixers putting out free content all over the web, have catapulted me light years ahead of where I would be without your insight. Thank you so much for all of the excellent tutelage and inspiration you give.
Been meaning to post this here for awhile. An interesting essay by Barry Andrews of the band Shriekback that parallels the (interminable) digital vs. analog argument with greek mythology:
http://shriekbackmusic.tumblr.com/post/101449777262/mercurys-downloads-and-saturns-t-shirts
Andrew Scheps (U2, Beyonce, Johnny Cash, Adele, Black Sabbath, Jay-Z, etc.) is now, in his words, “100% mixing in the box.” He talks about how he transitioned into the box, setting-up templates, and using parallel compression starting at the 2:00 minute mark in the below video.
.
Just bumped into him at the coffee line at NAMM 🙂 Super nice guy.
Before I make my comment I wanna say that I assume most people who read The Rec Rev are people like me who are tracking their songs as well as mixing in their home studio as opposed to just mixing previously recorded tracks.
Surely there was £££££ worth of analogue gear used in tracking wasn’t there??? It’s a bit hard to credit ITB mixing for the overall sound of a song if this is the case ’cause, as we all know, mixing starts at the tracking stage even if the AE and ME are different people. It’d be great to find out what was used for tracking in the competition before the ME’s got hold of the tracks.
You’re right, it depends on wether `mixing in the box`, in his acceptation, means mixing in the box sound already processed and recorded though… analog gear – basically only using digital mixing tools, or, as is the case with many of us, also processing the sound (to obtain the final track/instrument sound in the DAW, as opposed to prior to recording) exclusively in the digital domain – which is, in my view, the real challenge.
Just goes to show he’s a better mixer and it’s the other decisions you make thats more crucial than whether people prefer the sound of itb v analogue, also it obviously wasn’t testing for this or if so it was a flawed way of going about it
Ain’t that the truth! As time goes by the whole analogue vs digital argument becomes obsolete. The actual fact of the matter is that most of us are using half analogue (i.e. preamps, mics, real instruments) and half digital setups anyway so we can’t take either side. It’s all about the hybrid.
One thing would be great though. I wonder how long each ME spent on his/her mix? Time is of the essence.
How awesome would this mix sound if it was done with a console? Just kidding 😉
GREAT information Graham
This is the #truth
This not only applies to Mixing, but to all areas of this thing we love….. MUSIC.
So much money and time is wasted on getting the latest and greatest thing. Hoping that it is the missing link to make what your doing pop and sound good.
GEAR WILL NOT MAKE YOU HOT. They are tools to assist you with the creation process,
We rely so much on presets, That we consider it to be the law.
Yes, it’s interesting that his in the box mix was picked, but does one band’s/label opinion on which mixes sound better doesn’t necessarily mean it sounds better.
Do you have examples of the mixes that we can listen and decide for ourselves?
Some people also prefer things that sound crushed. Does it mean it’s ‘better’?
People also prefer auto-tuned 4 on the floor music these days over anything else. Is that better music?
Of course gear matters. There’s a bunch of junk out there (like Behringer – sponsor of this site) that severely mangles audio in way that makes things sound worse than they begin with.
The correct post should have been that gear is part of the puzzle.
If you’re talking about using Behringer/ entry level M-box converters – yes it will absolutely help if you upgrade to something from, say RME. Are you going to get as much improvement if you’re an RME and upgraded to something like the Lynx? Probably not as much as the first example, but what level are you at? Would you be upgrading to something like a Prism/Mytek or Crane Song?
Your ears/taste/technique matters most, but to make broad statements that gear doesn’t matter makes no sense.
Analog console vs in the box does matter, but obviously not as much as using a $100 condenser microphone from China with terrible high end vs using a U47. If choosing ITB vs OTB is taking time away from someone making music, then yes, that discussion shouldn’t matter. Having said that, being able to mix faster OTB can produce superior results. The workflow speed (rather than the specifics of the gear) does have a large impact on the results too.
Behringer mics are not peoples problem. I have a few of them and use them regularly on projects. That’s brand snobbery talking 🙂
Hey Graham,
I’m new to recording and a huge fan of Ken Andrews & Failure. Looks like I’m now also a fan of your blog, because I’ve been browsing for a couple hours now and have learned a ton! Thank you for sharing all of your insights. I am definitely feeling more confident about the fundamentals, and what to concentrate on next.
Mike
Thanks for stopping by Mike!
Just signed up and love your blog! One of the best i’ve seen! I’m a do it all kind of guy since i’m a multi instrumentalist and have been doing my own original recordings since i was 13 and now i’m 42 and loved your youtube vids i came across Graham! I need to check out more but glad to be part of this and hope i can help and learn! We all never stop learning and i own my own label and recording studio and some of my best recordings were done on an 8 track tape based system when i was young! It’s all about the music and passion and just recently i got caught up in the gotta have everything syndrome and my recordings have suffered and would like to personally thank you for helping that by me watching your vid’s! I’ve done so much in this crazy business including touring with a successful Zeppelin tribute bband to being signed to an indie label with an original band and boy has music changed and it’s cool to see level headed knowledgeable people like yourself offer great advice! Keep up the great work and i’ll def bechecking in and inviting people here! I run a few large facebook groups for promoting and know lots of people would get use from your books and knowledge! Have a great day! Sincerely, Michael
Thanks a lot Michael!
I gotta say, it just doesn’t matter if it’s digital or analogue. The question rather is: does that specific piece of gear or plugin work; does it make something sound better and does it meet our objective? I have some really nice tube amps, for example…ok, cool…they have tubes – unfortunately that doesn’t make my recorded amps sound any better in and of itself – in the end it boils down to knowing how to take advantage of the gear you have. The biggest roadblock to crossing the mixing finish line has typically been me. Less is definitely more!
Gear snobbery is such a joke once you figure out what it is you are doing and why. I did this record with this band with a female singer, they had a pretty decent mic locker at their own studio, U87s, 414s, AKG the Tube, typical mid-nineties choices. Drummer who is sort of the gearhead of the bunch peeks into the vocal area and had a cow, his old snare mic, one definitely bashed but American sm-57 is in her hand, no stand, no pop filter, I am telling her to act out the song and pretend she is on Midnight Special. The mic pre is starting to smell like a hair dryer and I am tracking enough GR that you can hear her tongue hit her teeth. I also told her I hate recording singers, if you can’t get it in three takes why bother. She was unleashed, she wailed, she cried, she moaned, she emoted, it was terrific. She became an artist, she figured out to manipulate what she heard in the cans and matched the material. Later I edited the handling noise and crazy bits just a little, we had to fix a couple of lines here and there, done. Was it pristine? Hopefully not, rock and roll is supposed to be unruly. Was it the best she ever sounded? Well, duh, their next thing was done by some “pro”…..smile. The problem with this and every other site that talks about recording is that they fail to actually listen to the records that inspired them in the first place. Sense memory has taken over the reality. “Aja” sounds pretty pedestrian, sonically, compared to what someone with skill can do ITB with a free download and a decent monitoring environment. Sometimes hype and “intellectual” interpretation of an artist’s oeuvre by really smart writers and critics has more velocity than the actual waveforms, a sort of mass revisionist history. But if you wanna get small, and learn every trick that was ever invented in this silly game, and feel like you might as well quit…..well, The White Album is still for sale, sit close to monitors, forget what you thought the record sounded like when you heard it while smoking pot and trying to impress some chick at a party.
The question ITB vs. OTB is some kind of stupid. But it must be told that mixing on a console feels and sounds diffrent. I did try to make it happen pure ITB and all the time I end up using the console, at least for summing, and inserting a few HW comps. If some ITB geeks get that lush and big sound without real gear I feel happy for them. It never worked out for me and I did try to like the ITB output. For example the low end never sounds right ITB. It takes ages to make it happen for me…..
Well, I disagree OTB must sound different than ITB, as I feel you’re side-stepping sound shaping plug-ins that has qualities that largely does the same thing to the sound as nice console does. While I’m sure there is a difference with real gear it the big difference is always the individual doing the mixing/producing. If this individual prefers the work flow of proper analogue gear and the default sound with that gear then that is a strong enough reason.
If on the other hand you don’t even have this luxury and think console emulation and a select toolbox of saturation/distortion and compressors do the job close enough and the work flow fits, then there’s really nothing to worry about beyond further advancing your skills and using your imagination. That’s what’s it’s all about I think.
Not again sigh…
I am sure those tracks have seen a lot of real gear in tracking.
That makes mixing ITB more easy.
Using real gear is diffrent from using plug ins.
There is a reason why real gear mixes sound wider, opener, deeper etc.
Analog owns the benefit to not simulate anything.
Real Gear ads thousands of tiny little delays to a signal, very very very short ones.
That gives the 3 D impression.
Are there good ITB mixes … hell yes.
But if you use, like the most home studios, sounds out of the box …. real gear makes even more sense. You wont need high end gear to make a new experience.
I’ve Mixed ITB & OTB. What really matters is how it was Recorded. I assure you that Paramore didn’t cut any corners on the gear they used. SHARC based and TDM Plugins dedicate DSP that sound as good as the real gear in most cases. My UAD LA2A sounds as good as the one in my rack(it doesn’t get used much, but it’s prettyLol). My BAE 1073 is vital, but after buying tons of Mics.. An SM7B thru that Neve w/ the Eq engaged only adding a fraction of decibels makes it smoke my $4k Mics for most things! Now Mastering ITB, well that’s going to be a ways down the road due to clocking variable sample rates. Go check out Brian Lucey’s Mastering Facility. Room Treatment should come before buying expensive monitors when Mixing. Sound moves at @ 343 MS and your ears hear everything in the room after the direct sound hits your ear 2.2 MS later. Mixing ITB has caught up, but it does have a different sound that can be less 3D IMO, but I am completely Mixing in the Box these days! Ken Andrews is one of my favorite Mixers. The new Failure Record is a Sonic Masterpiece! Year of The Rabbit was amazing too.
Yes gear makes no difference. Paramore tracked with a 57 in a closet with an M-audio. All the people reading this can spend little to nothing and make records just like the pros!