Why most itb mixes

The price includes all studio time and materials. I can offer discounts on the mastering if you would like me to handle that part of the process. See my mastering page for more information. Information on Console vs. ITB mixing Mixing is often the most challenging part of an album project for the beginner. Studio Console Mixing: This method of mixing has the artist and engineer mix the record on a console, typically analog with some form of automation.

In the Box Mixing: This has become the most popular method of mixing for several reasons. If I have some elements that conflict in the same audio frequency spectrum, I'll try to use the eq to seperate them and give them thier own space.

Most of the in-channel effects are really subtle and only there to add stereo content. Last edited by Refund on Sun Nov 29, pm, edited 1 time in total. I have not read that particular book but if you look at the Kindle version on Amazon, you can browse the first chapter. Also the book has links to audio examples - even multitrack files for honing your skills.

The first thing we must ask is simply what is 0VU. What does it mean to us. Now let take a common situation. Like most people today every track is recorded as hot as hell.

Most pro Eng's will use proper gain staging and get the now slammed meters reading around 0VU or 1. Sounds simple right? So by putting the incoming signal at around this reference, your rack equipment will work better as well. Well remember that the 1. Now to ITB. Lets pretend we have the same setup as we did on the SSL. Now most folks mixing ITB don't understand reference levels when relating it to Digital. Just like you did on the SSL. You have have the same amount of headroom.

You can also insert hardware and they will operate much better as they are operating at the level they were designed to operate at. Plugins use the same reference at real equipment. Never try and drive them to the top of the Digital scale.

Don't try and make your mix look like a master. You don't do that on an analog console, so why do we do it ITB? The answer is simple. DAW meters suck Butt. Just like the old VU. This way, novices will quit corn-holeing their levels. Something to think about. Our equivalent "problem level" below our reference in digital is well over DB. So please don't let people tell you analog has more "headroom" than digital.

This is simply not true. Headroom is only relative to your noise floor below your reference. Remember if the volume is to low, turn up the darn speaker volume. No one will get a good sounding running the desk like that.

So what does all this mean? Put simply, proper gain staging is essential to both analog and digital mixing. You just need to correlate the references between the two.

Once you figure this out, I'll Guarantee your mixes will start to sound open and wide, just like the good old analog days. Post by glitched01 » Sun Dec 20, am The main thing is to use your ears. I agree. Sound-wise, plug-ins have come a long way. To me, the difference is that in the digital domain, I have to create distortion and saturation in layers. In the analogue domain, I can slap a Ridge Farm Boiler limiter on the drums and get instant gratification - Beastie Boys drums.

Most modern DACs sounds good enough and will do the job, but when you move up to the top-layer of DACs, there is a reward to be collected. If you want to record an analogue mix in its full glory, you have to use a high-quality ADC and pay accordingly for it. With equivalent sounding plug-ins, they will have to be massaged and tweaked all the way through the mix. Done with guitar amps and cabs, I always find myself having to subtract things that are 'too much sounding'.

In general, I prefer cutting out stuff when mixing, because in the end it will sound better. In the analogue domain, gain can be added which in some cases 'inflate' the sound and give it a 'vibe'. It can, to some extent, be simulated in the digital domain, but with limitations.

It takes a lot of money and energy to find the 'right' setup for your music and your personal taste. Hell no, just adding a guitar pedal like a Big Muff or a Tube Screamer or a used analogue compressor, can make your music producing much more fun and rewarding.

To me, it sounds like a festival of Slate plug-in emulations - most noticeable on the vocals and drums. Have a nice Sunday Fred. I agree with all of this except : Popular passive analogue mixing boxes not providing the best hybrid mixing solution. I don't think a passive summing box simulates enough of what goes on in a console.

And I agree there should be active gain stages prior to summing. But that's not an indication of a flaw in passive summing boxes. It just says passive summing isn't a magic bullet. For now, I'll keep using what I already spent good money on. I haven't heard any complaints from the musicians or their fans There is a huge return on investment with good plugins. They are affordable and their usefulness goes a long way. I am in business to make money, not give the gear companies all of my profits or to appease cork sniffing audiophiles.

After all, Taylor Swift recorded her demos in "a shack" then got signed. It can be done in various ways and does involve passive summing, but the best results are, in my experience, not achieved by simple passive resistor networks and 30dB of make-up gain with a micpreamp - which seems to be a popular choice.

All channels should be properly buffered to minimize crosstalk, noise etcetera with active mixing stages. I actually think simple resister networks and a micpreamp make-up gain is a flawed design.

What's sad is that people seem to judge mixing out-the-box with such solutions - because they are pretty cheap - and don't get the out-the-box sonic benefits. Excellent post. One question: I'm mixing on an analog console so I rarely use any plugins in PT. What if any is the difference in using a trim plugin on each track versus just adjusting the volume down using the PT fader or trim tool on volume auto line?

I would assume that ITB the trim plug would adjust the volume to the following plugs where the fader is post plugs but what about the scenario where you are mixing on an analog console without trim at the tape input? Any audible or logistical differences in the two methods of gain adjustment? Thanks, Rick. The fader only will adjust the level feeding the mix buss or master fader summing. The trim plugin as the first plugin will adjust the reference level into the following processing. Hope that helps.

Skip, thanks for the reply. I assume you are speaking of a difference to the levels when mixing with plugins in the path, that I understand as it is important to adjust the volume before the plugs and not after. Assuming that the volume of each track is adjusted to appropriate levels for the analog board does it matter whether you use a trim plugin or just adjust with the PT channel fader?

Are they adjusting the volume on each track to the converter output in essentially the same manner or is there a fundamental difference. Again, this is strictly speaking of each track outputting to a single converter output with no ITB plugs being used other than the possibility of the trim plugin.

Thanks again, Rick. Thanks Skip. This is an awesome thread. Very insightful. Great post Skip. I just started using the trim and now have a better understanding of what the diff is btween it and the fader.

I mix strickly ITB and have been automating the fader I wasn't aware that it should go before the plugins using it as a gain staging tool into channel including the plugs as I thought the gain in the plugin was for that purpose.

Now I see that it is all considered serially. Thanks again, all of you. Thanks Skip Great Post! You have a great idea for a metering plugin, maybe you should team up with someone and develop it , I agree, ITB metering really needs to improve.

Great post! Great post, but for a person like me a video in practicality outlining this would do wonders for n00bs like me. Number 6. Should be made into a sticky post.