# Mixers - who's using them?



## reid (Mar 15, 2009)

Anybody here running their system through a hardware mixer? For more than just monitoring?

In the last 12 months I've started using an outboard stereo EQ and compressor on my final stereo pass, enjoying the sonics added that (so far) I haven't found any plug-in being able to emulate. The only downside I've found to this has been foregoing on/off line bounce, but that's a small price to pay I feel.

So now I'm starting to wonder about going a step further, and getting a hardware mixer, namely a Midas Venice 160. Would love to hear the thoughts of others on the pros and cons of this....

For me the pros are - 

i) Recording live instrumentalists in my own studio becomes a whole lot easier

ii) Easier integration of hardware, such as reverbs, sound modules, etc

iii) The intangible plus of adding extra noise, harmonic distortion, crosstalk, etc to my otherwise pristine digital signal path. Call me deluded, but I always felt I got a better stereo image, channel separation and 'immediacy' of sound, 10 years ago when we all _had_ to run our rigs with mixers.

iv) Access to some nice channel EQs for stem mixing

v) Far more comprehensive monitor section than most monitor controllers offer these days.


the cons......

i) all those lovely mains / earth hums, clicks and fride power-ups to contend with

ii) patchbays......

iii) the sneaking fear that I'm paying good money to replicate functions that my software mixer and Ensemble can already take care of.

iv) it's a couple of grand that could be spent elsewhere in the studio (and that's a whole different thread :mrgreen: ....)


FWIW I'm largely working with VIs, the occasional added live instrumentalist (though I'd like to increase that) doing orchestral / hybrid tracks. Who's for, who's against? - would love to hear anybodys thoughts.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 15, 2009)

I am.

I still have a lot of analogue units and also use Lexicons and other outboard gear.

For tracks that are coming from my DAW, all the mixer channels are set to unity... I almost never ride the faders on the mixer... all done in the DAW or via CC vol info.


----------



## reid (Mar 15, 2009)

hi Thonex,

thanks for replying.

Out of interest, if you could, would you rather do without the mixer - is it a necessary evil or a welcome tool? 

And do you find yourself using its EQs or is it more of a routing 'processor'? Notice any sonic benefits?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2009)

I got rid of my mixer years ago and haven't looked back. If I were recording live instruments I'd want one, but for everything else they're just too big.


----------



## midphase (Mar 15, 2009)

No mixer here!


----------



## Thonex (Mar 15, 2009)

reid @ Sun Mar 15 said:


> hi Thonex,
> 
> thanks for replying.
> 
> ...



I like it. It's all digital, and 24 bit... It's great for playing live parts... no noticeable latency. I'mstill holding on to a fair amount of analogue gear, so I need my consoles, but I've flirted with the idea of going mixerless (with an analog Neve side-car... for warmth) using the SSL (previously Soundscape) Mixpander Madi system with 64 analog i/os.


http://www.solid-state-logic.com/post/Xlogic%20Mixpander/index.asp (http://www.solid-state-logic.com/post/X ... /index.asp)


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 15, 2009)

I've gone all internal (mixerless,) but I do sometimes think I'd like to use an analog mixer again. Not only for the reasons you give, but also for the psychological bonus of feeling that much more "connected" to what I'm doing.

There's something very satisfying and "musical" about turning a real (as opposed to virtual) knob or knowing each instrument is actually going through a circuit. It brings me back to the days when every part of what I did was an important process.

Of course, this slows things down a lot and will probably be the reason I never do go with an analog mixer again. But being "all in the box," there is a certain amount of satisfaction I don't get anymore.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2009)

My mixer was just sitting there with the faders at unity, so it wasn't adding anything. Any lingering desire to move faders is completely trumped by the ergonomics of the famous VI Composer's Desk. I'm always sitting in the sweet spot between the speakers, with the computer monitor, sliding desktop, and MIDI keyboard always in the perfect position.

My outboard hardware and instruments (not that I have a lot) are accessible in the DAW mixer, just like plug-ins and V.I.s.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 15, 2009)

The only mixer I use these days is the one for making pina coladas.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 15, 2009)

I prefer having options so I won't be getting rid of my hardware effects.
But I cannot afford a lavish analog desk like a Neve, but have access to them.
Since I still prefer certain hardware effects, and have DSP effects like Delays that out perform their hardware equivalents, I enjoy the best or both worlds.
Live my group uses the hardware effects and a Crest XRM with four IEM / Mic headsets, and when we record on a nice console thankfully they also have great mic pres and mics which I can't afford either. This rig cost me enough.

But having a quality DSP mixer that can route my Analog synths, IEM's, Romplers & hardware effects with the options mentioned is heavenly live.
For small home projects having the hardware effects routed into a project to record to my DAW sequencer is a snap, as everything packs both sides of a 16U ATA that includes a KVM switcher between the 4U's w/ an 8U 19" LCD.
Our drummer uses triggers for the LSAD Kick and Toms and mics the snare w/ a cymbal overhead.

I can't afford a lavish all analog set up, but having a hybrid rig like this live, with the flexible routing options of a DSP platform for when I do record is good enough.
Besides I often have to suffer with Union stagehands as engineers, so a few stems make's that easy.
I even had a guy who told us he was Dyslexic once ....... >8o WTF... :?: 
I told him no plroblem..put me in Channel 11 and gave him the master out.

Chance Favors The Prepared Mind...


----------



## synthetic (Mar 15, 2009)

I have an digital console, but I'd honestly trade it for a RME Raydat, Euphonix controller and Lynx Aurora 16 or other nice A/D/D/A. On the other hand, it's off to the side of the desk, away from my monitors, and offers a nice perspective on a mix. I like that I can't see the display as well when I'm mixing, it forces me to listen harder. I have a small set of speakers over there and it works pretty well. (My console, TASCAM DM-3200, is an interface, mixer and fader controller.)

I work for TASCAM, so this is on loan. It probably would not have been my first choice, but I kinda like the workflow. (But I still want the RAYdat, Aurora and Euphonix.)


----------



## reid (Mar 16, 2009)

Ned Bouhalassa @ 15th March said:


> The only mixer I use these days is the one for making pina coladas.



ba-BUMP! /\~O 

Now there's a man who's got his priorities right.......

Thanks for the replies folks - I guess I'm no nearer falling to one or other side of the fence, still torn between a mixer, a Bricasti and an Aurora 16. Doesn't help that with the end of my tax year coming up in 2 weeks, I *have* to make a decision or end up handing the cash over to the taxman. :roll: 

But that's a whole different thread.


----------



## ChrisAxia (Mar 17, 2009)

Hey guys,

Over the years, I've moved from some big analogue consoles to smaller digital ones and now have a Yamaha DM1000. Like some here, I set the faders at Unity and use it like a glorified router. However, I do occasionally record and mix live stuff and this is when I still like to have a mixer. I have recorded many demos for pop singer Mika, and he likes to be able to grab faders and tweak, so the Yamaha occasionally gets used like a mixer!

I don't miss the old, noisy analogue mixers, and a good friend who is an excellent musician and engineer (he usually records through analogue mixers, but mixes in Logic), recently had the chance to mix through a very expensive valve mixer. He said it sounded like a muddy mess! 

I'm sure it depends on the material, although I remember Trevor Horn in a Sound on Sound interview saying that the only difference he could hear between an SSL mix and one done in ProTools was that the SSL mix had more distortion!

~Chris


----------



## synthetic (Mar 17, 2009)

All I know is that there was a summing shootout online. One of the selections was Pro Tools (ITB), the rest were different summers. My pick was "anything but C," and C was ITB. There are a lot of engineers moving in this direction. It's a pretty simple thing to do, you just need a summing mixer and to mix in stems. Which is a good practice anyway. 

Believe me, I really don't want to buy a summing mixer. But I heard a difference, and it was like, aw crap. Now I need a summing mixer.  Ignorance is bliss. The ITB mix to me sounded the most distorted, very tight and small and forced. The others sounded open and musical. 

I've heard others say that running through an external processor is the same thing, but I've heard differently. Not to say that doesn't help things too. Different DAWs sound different, too. A summing mixer is pretty simple to build, just a resistor to lower the level, summing together into a gain stage. I just need to get around to doing it. 

I don't know why it sounds different. I've learned to detach the scientific "why?" part of my brain from what I'm hearing. A should sound like B, but doesn't. Why? That's for some engineer to figure out. I have enough to worry about trying to make my stuff sound good.


----------



## ChrisAxia (Mar 17, 2009)

Hi again,

I'm sure your ears are correct and that the mixes through the summing boxes sound better. What Nick was saying which was verified in review of a summing mixer I read a while ago, is that the result was the same whether the reviewer ran a stereo 'in the box' mix through the unit, or had 8 separate stems. This implies that it was not the actual summing that made the difference in this particular case.

~C


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2009)

Again again, Nick is only speculating. He hasn't heard this, so he's not making statements!


----------



## ChrisAxia (Mar 17, 2009)

Oops! Apologies for putting words in your mouth, Nick. I haven't heard the comparison myself, but trust Paul White of Sound on Sound when he did this test.

Chris


----------



## MaraschinoMusic (Mar 17, 2009)

I'll put my hand up :D 

I route the 16 outputs from the computer to the first 16 analogue inputs on my Yamaha 02R, and always mix externally to the computer. I'll sub-mix inside the computer, for example several tracks of backing vocals down to a stereo pair, but I like the feeling of "hands on" mixing. I'll record the analogue output of the mixer back to Logic on mixdown. Then I'll master completely in the digital domain. My Audio Workstation is probably very modest compared to some, but I'm very happy with the results I get.


----------



## MacQ (Mar 18, 2009)

I only ever used my mixer as a line-input for my rack synths before I had an audio interface with enough inputs to cover them all. And, come to think of it, when I had more rack synths. A Fireface 800 has me covered now.

As far as analog summing goes, I used to be staunchly in the "it's bullshit" camp. But I was in Sweden over the new year, and a mixer friend of mine who swears by it gave me a chance to really put it to the test. Sure enough, his Dangerous 2-Bus (http://www.dangerousmusic.com/2bus.html) sounded startlingly different than the ProTools mix. The vocal (it was a pop record) wasn't fighting with anything else ... it just sat where it should be, and we weren't always having to ride the level to get it to behave in the mix (and were able to use less compression, too).

It was just so much easier to mix ... so much so that I'm thinking of buying one myself. Just for amusement, the mix itself was of "Trine Jepsen - I'll Never Fall In Love Again" from the 2009 Danish Melodi Grand Prix (their precursor to the Eurovision Song Contest).

Anyway, he used to mix on a Euphonix analog console, but sold it for a digital board for more automation control, then went to ProTools completely. Eventually he figured out that the Euphonix mixes were better, had better separation and depth. The Dangerous 2-Bus brought that quality back to his mixes.

I'm still staunchly in the "192KHz audio recording is bullshit" camp, though. 

~Stu


----------



## bryla (Mar 18, 2009)

Stu did you mix Trine's?! cool


----------



## reid (Mar 18, 2009)

Well, I solved my own dilemma about the mixer.

I've just ordered a Bricasti :mrgreen:


----------



## re-peat (Mar 18, 2009)

Excellent purchase. Congratulations. But you'll still be annoyed by the fact - and it's no delusion, I believe - that _"you always felt you got a better stereo image, channel separation and 'immediacy' of sound, 10 years ago, when we all _had_ to run our rigs with mixers."_ That's precisely the reason why I got myself a http://www.thermionicculture.com/products/fatbustard.html (Thermionic Culture 'Fat Bustard'), a 12-channel all valve summing mixer, a few months ago - I had the exact same feeling as you ...

Thing is, if you're sensitive to the difference that good analogue equipment can bring to 'sound' - and you seem to be - then there's only one solution and that is: get some good analogue equipment. Plug-ins won't do it, no matter how amazing some of them are.

I would also like to contradict the idea that there's hardly any difference between simply running a two-track through an analogue unit or effectively summing inside one. With really good summers - like the Thermionic or the Chandler Mini, for instance - the differences can be quite substantial.

_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2009)

Well, you're running 12 channels through those tubes rather than two. Sure it's going to sound different.

But - not to be argumentative, since I haven't heard this - I'm curious why it would sound like you're getting better channel separation when the spec would have to be worse. Maybe it's just a little distortion adding definition to each track - and I don't mean that as a negative.

My experience with running things through analog processors rather than plug-ins that emulate them (specifically an LA2A vs. the TDM plug-in) is that you just get a bigger sound. The plug-in emulation can duplicate the processing effect but not the size. What I don't know is how much the Soundcraft board affected the sound rather than the processor itself when we did that test.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 18, 2009)

I think the reason is that summing through resistors (100 trillion bit resolution) is more exact that summing in a DAW (64-bit resolution at best). 

I asked an engineer once if it was fair to call our new Alesis reverb processor "18-bit." He said, "well, the A/D is 18-bit, then it converts to 24-bit, then 32-bit float, then 8-bit float, then back to 24-bit, then..." Point being, there's a lot of rounding that goes on when digitally processing. I think all of these conversions and rounding are creating more distortion than a good ADDA conversion and analog summer. 

Note that I said a _good_ ADDA conversion, a summing mixer with a cheap converter isn't going to be as much benefit.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 18, 2009)

We're coming back to a point I was trying to make above: if X sounds better than Y, then who cares why? Just do X! 

I found the page with the shootout, unfortunately the files are no longer hosted online. I think I have a CD at home, maybe I'll mail you a copy if I can find it.


----------



## reid (Mar 18, 2009)

re-peat @ 18th March said:


> Excellent purchase. Congratulations. But you'll still be annoyed by the fact - and it's no delusion, I believe - that _"you always felt you got a better stereo image, channel separation and 'immediacy' of sound, 10 years ago, when we all _had_ to run our rigs with mixers."_ That's precisely the reason why I got myself a http://www.thermionicculture.com/products/fatbustard.html (Thermionic Culture 'Fat Bustard'), a 12-channel all valve summing mixer, a few months ago - I had the exact same feeling as you ...



I hear what you're saying re-peat, and I'm pretty sure this is a subject I'll be addressing in the future; the simple fact is that I was offered a Bricasti at a price that I'd have to have been insane to turn down, and if I didn't snap it up there and then......

Congrats on the Bustard, I'll bet you're having fun with that - I tested one late last year but found it didn't provide quite what I was expecting, or looking for. I think my taste runs a little less rock 'n roll and a bit more in the direction of 'clean with a good EQ'. The Midas I mentioned at the start of the thread is just a sop to my current poster-boy, the (much more expensive... :shock: ) Studer 902.

It'll happen, it'll happen........


----------



## re-peat (Mar 19, 2009)

Reid,

My thinking was: in the blue corner, there's the somewhat clinical, one-dimensional and lifeless sound of 'in the box' audio (the 'plugin sound', which all my pieces have and which I also hear in almost every piece posted here on V.I. or elsewhere), so I really need a true heavyweight of creamy, punchy, valve-y beauty in red corner, to match, otherwise there's little point. Anwyay, if I end up with a sound somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, I'll be very happy.

Nick,

I think it's something else than just 'a bigger sound'. I'm not really after a bigger sound, certainly not, I'm after a more 'organic' sound, for want of a better description. I always associate the plugin sound with carboard cut-outs, which can look really nice but only from one angle. Whereas I want a sound that you can walk around so to speak, a sound that has real depth and character.

_


----------



## Frederick Russ (May 3, 2009)

synthetic @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> I think analog summing sounds better. It's subtle, but I can pick it out in a blind test. The analog mix sounds better to me, more depth and definition. I plan to buy or build a summing mixer one day soon.



I agree - there seems to be more detail and dimensionality by summing to higher end analog gear with just about everything you can throw at it and based on what I could tell, not sure if the difference is the actual summing of stems via analog or simply D/A two track through the analog gear. The deal breaker would be how good the DA --> analog sum bus --> AD would be because whatever gains you might get could be essentially lost by the introduction of conversion artifacts (in or out) if these aren't well thought out.


----------



## Waywyn (May 4, 2009)

Posted this a while ago on another thread. Differences are definitely there:

http://vintageking.com/site/files/sumshoot.htm


----------



## germancomponist (May 4, 2009)

Alex, you are sooo right!

There was a time when I not believed that there is this big different. But, since I have testet only to insert my Klark Compressor I am very impressd!


----------



## rayinstirling (May 4, 2009)

Well my ears like the Neve which probably says more about my ears than the hardware.


----------



## germancomponist (May 4, 2009)

rayinstirling @ Mon May 04 said:


> Well my ears like the Neve which probably says more about my ears than the hardware.



...well said o/~


----------



## rayinstirling (May 4, 2009)

Well Gunther,

I didn't explain my reasons for choosing the Neve but if pushed I would say it is less good at defining the individual parts and definitely better at creating the sum of them in a coherent joined up sound. Does that make sense? It does to me!


----------



## NYC Composer (May 5, 2009)

listened to the first api vs unprocessed mix ( ( is that what we're supposed to listen to?)

I hard more saturation and a definite level gain on the API. I didn't put a meter on it, but it sure SOUNDED louder.

I dunno. I get a similar sound from Vintage Warmer 2. I know it's all nuance, but...eh.


----------

