mixing boards vs mic-pres

shaft wrote on 2/25/2003, 3:40 PM

I am trying to decide whether to invest in some high quality mic-pres, API or Universal Audio, or put my money into a mixing board. I have been doing all my mixes within the computer, but I hear that I might get better results incorporating a mixing board. Let me know what you think are the pros and cons of mixing totally within the computer.

Comments

bgc wrote on 2/25/2003, 4:24 PM

i have the pre-amp / internal mixing setup.
the benefit of this, mixing-wise, is that you have super convienent mix recall by just loading the file. you also have the option of using whatever equalization plug-in you want for a track and not be stuck with what the board provides. automation of all the mix parameters is nice too. that and if you monitor stereo out of the computer you don't need lots of D/A converters which should be as good as possible.

if you're old school and really need to touch knobs, well then go with the board.

drbam wrote on 2/25/2003, 4:49 PM

The signal routing possibilities with a good outboard mixer are generally much greater and its much easier if you want to use outboard gear along with the plugins. Monitoring options are tyically much greater as well. For many folks, a good digital mixer will give you the best of both worlds. However, unless you spend fairly big bucks on a mixer, the mic pres (although pretty good in most cases) won't be as good as a decent standalone mic pre unit. I personally prefer working with a mixer and its much more than needing to just "touch knobs." There's an organic, felt experience that greatly contributes to the overall quality and performance of mixing this way IMO. And with the exception of post production studios or dedicated "Protools rooms," I've yet to see or hear of a decent commercial studio that doesn't use a mixer . I seriously doubt this is just to impress clients. ;-)

drbam

fishtank wrote on 2/25/2003, 4:52 PM

I have heard that many of the higher-budget projects are tracked (for example) with Pro Tools and then mixed on a very expensive SSL analog console because it *sounds* better. I do not doubt that this is true, but I would also guess that any reasonably priced mixer that most of us could afford would probably not sound better than mixing in the computer. There are obviously some drawbacks to DAW mixing versus an analog board with outboard gear, but I personally feel the advantages working in the PC end up outweighing them in the end. The multitrack recording\mixing software keeps getting better which make me think I would regret spending a fortune on an analog console in the long run.

drbam wrote on 2/25/2003, 5:17 PM

<<I have heard that many of the higher-budget projects are tracked (for example) with Pro Tools and then mixed on a very expensive SSL analog console because it *sounds* better.>>

Although this is sometimes the case, actually the opposite is more frequent. Additionally, quite often the project is tracked through the console to either 2 inch analog, protools, and sometimes both. Editing and fundamental mix layout is done in protools, then the final mix is run back through the console again to analog tape and/or some digital format.

But the pros and cons of this discussion, as always, really come down to how one prefers to work and what's the most comfortable for them. ;-)

drbam

PeterVred wrote on 3/4/2003, 11:56 AM

having just made the move to computer mixing a year ago, i am still in the "amazed" stage. being able to save mixes is the ONLY way to work. that being said, a digital mixer would be cool, because you would be able to still use your outboard efx which to me is the only drawback with computer mixing.

THAT being said, i HAVE used my outboard efx by routing out of and back into vegas but it is time comsumming and the input back in has to be manually aligned to allow for the latency.

In summary: for now...i would skip the mixing board for a while and get used to the computer....but leave your big mixer in the studio to satisfy your clients need for a big visual.

Arnar wrote on 3/4/2003, 2:19 PM

To me the main disadvantage with using a DAW is not having the ability to really "find" the sound you are after.

I´ll try and explain....

When using an analog board for mixing drums for example its so easy to make a split channel and bring up a snare on 2-4 channels and tweak´em all in a different way and then blend to taste to get the right snare.

Then send a submix of the drum to another twochannels and compress to hell and bring up to taste ...stuff like that.
This is obviously possible on a DAW but nowhere near as intuitive.

DAw´s are awesome for editing and recall but cant compete when it comes to mixing in my opinion.

Rednroll wrote on 3/4/2003, 9:12 PM

"I am trying to decide whether to invest in some high quality mic-pres, API or Universal Audio, or put my money into a mixing board."

Why not go for both? I'm not using the prestine/super expensive mic pre's that you listed. I'm using a few DBX mic/pre channel strips along with my Yamaha digital mixing board. The thing you really gain from having a mixing board is versitility as long as you have a patchbay along with it. If someone brings in a keyboard, drum machine, or recording media (ie ADAT/DA-88) you can patch directly into your mixing board and route signals directly to your sound cards inputs via busses. You also have a lot of extra mic pre's if it comes time to record someone with a large drum kit. My mixer has 8 Mic/pre's and I can use those instead of the external mic/pres and bus signals together, like Toms. They're not as good as my dedicated mic/pre's, but are good enough for drums when micing a large kit. For Vocals and other 1 track at a time recordings I'll use the mic pre's and patch directly into my sound card inputs and bypass the mixer.....or if I don't feel like patching I'll just patch it into the Line IN of my mixing board and route the signals through the buses on the board. It just depends on what I'm doing, but I have the versitilty to do what I want is the point I'm making. Come mixing time, I use my mixer as a sub/mix. I'll do submixes of drums, lead vocals, backing vocals and such within Vegas mixing section and route them out seperate busses within Vegas. Each bus is connected to a mixing board channel and I do the final leveling of each on the mixing board and then route the mix back into Vegas and to DAT. The nice thing about a digital mixer is that you can save your mixes via MIDI. So once the mix is done, I do a Midi dump into my sequencer and save a midi file in the same folder I keep my vegas project, so I still have the capability of TOTAL recall, although I'm using an external mixer.

Now if Vegas ever get's Midi hardware control support, I could also do my sub-mixes using my mixing board via Midi remote fader control, so I don't have to be mousing around with faders. Maybe by Vegas 9.0?