ADK Mics Ultimate Drum Giveaway
Killer Home Recording
View RSS Feed

paul999

Analog Vs Digital Brain!

Rate this Entry
12 Comments
by
paul999
, 03-22-2012 at 10:33 PM (1237 Views)
For me it is well established that awesome mixes can done digitally and fully analog.

As I wrote in my last blog I am now summing fully digitally but using a boat load of analog gear with in my system.

What Happens to an Analog Guy ITB?

What I am finding is that as I am working ITB more then I was for the last 6 months there are changes to my mixing. I am finding that my mixes are consistently harder fought. They take more time and I don't get a smile on my face nearly as quick. The mixes are very comparable if not better in the end but I am earning my pay check. Some of the issue is that I am mixing songs that were made on the template for my old mixing routine so now in each session I must set up the DAW mixer to function as I need it to. This is fairly extensive. This is not the whole problem.


What are the Differences Between an Analog and Digital Brain?

For me having worked extensively in both realms here is what I am finding this time around. When working on a console from a DAW you add F/X in the DAW send the source out to the console and sum.

Psychologically I've found that there is a huge difference for me. I am using MANY more plugs then I previously had. When working analog you have far fewer choices and when you find a problem you can only look at your available choices (Console eq and outboard compression). If that doesn't get your there then you add some plugs before the analog gear. I was always getting what I needed. ITB when it doesn't work out I find myself adding plug after plug to a source that needs repair. I eventually get there but plugins are so time consuming to work with. Argh! Mostly this is because plugins are so flexible that you tweek and tweek. Hardware while being much less flexible narrows things down and tends to do some work for you.

Is this an Analog vs Digital Blog?

No! I am convinced that with some experience my new system will become seriously efficient. The only difference is that now I can add plugin's after my analog gear. The stupid thing is that now that I am putting plugs after my analog gear I find I think differently.

How am I thinking differently

When I am limited to certain gear like a couple plugs an analog eq and an outboard compressor I get happy when I know I've done all I feel I can with the source. When the world is unlimited like it is with plugs you have to know exactly what you are going after and how to achieve it. It actually takes a better engineer IMO. With an API 550b you tweek the knobs until you like what you hear playing around until your done. With a plug in that can do so much more this mode of thinking just doesn't work.

Conclusion

I've been quite astonished at how hard this transition has been. I am not exactly sure where this is heading but I am determined to make it work because of the automation an recall benefits to my new system.

Cheers
m24p, Mackanov, garageband and 4 others like this.
Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Home Recording Talk

Comments

  1. kakeux's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    That's interesting...I will just say that the difference is that you don't own 200 hardware gears but around that number of plugins...I'm not saying you don't know your plugins, but I bet that it is at first very complicated to understand/know 200 plugins when maybe you know by heart 15 hardware units that you have chosen for their sounds...I'm not sure I'm very clear here

    Having no outboard gear, I went through this too...having too much plugins, is like spending weeks in a huge music shop and trying to buy only one thing after having tried every unit in the shop...

    Full ITB, means you will have to chose for some plugins that "always" do what you are expecting...like with hardware in fact...The you will end up using quite always the same plugins and keep the "searching/discovering" plugins process when you need a special effect...
  2. rook2c4's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    An interesting difference is the visualization aspect of mixing in a DAW.

    For example, during playback a mix in DAW's sequencer window, you can kind of "see" when an event is coming up in the timeline - when a vocal starts, when the mix goes into the chorus, or simply when the next drum fill takes place. On the all-analog mixing desk, you don't have this level of visualization; it's more based on your memory (or written notes) when specific events take place in the timeline.
    kakeux likes this.
  3. brandondrury's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    There's no doubt that the state of the noggin' makes a mega impact on mixes. It's a strange phenomenon that less possibilities lead to basically equal results. I'm thinking most of that stems from trying to damn hard.

    Today I mixed the song (tracked by bholst) for the Slate Digital Cup: April. I took about 4 hours on it. I had to get all the files prepared so I could upload them. I hit reset on the Cubase mixer. I accidentally hit play. It was overloading the 2bus. I said, "Hmmm. That really doesn't sound THAT different. Maybe it's a little less refined." Just for fun I did a 30 second mix on just the levels. No doubt, if I had to mix the song in 10 minutes I could. It wouldn't be the end of the world and the one I worked hard on may not be THAT much better.

    I suspect this is a corollary here. Maybe analog gear gives us less options. Maybe we don't fiddle too much with things that don't need fiddling.

    I'm playing with the notion of adding a time limit to all of my mixes from here on out for similar reasons. That'll be next week's article.

    Brandon
  4. AndiP's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Originally Posted by kakeux
    That's interesting...I will just say that the difference is that you don't own 200 hardware gears but around that number of plugins...I'm not saying you don't know your plugins, but I bet that it is at first very complicated to understand/know 200 plugins when maybe you know by heart 15 hardware units that you have chosen for their sounds...I'm not sure I'm very clear here

    Having no outboard gear, I went through this too...having too much plugins, is like spending weeks in a huge music shop and trying to buy only one thing after having tried every unit in the shop...

    Full ITB, means you will have to chose for some plugins that "always" do what you are expecting...like with hardware in fact...The you will end up using quite always the same plugins and keep the "searching/discovering" plugins process when you need a special effect...

    I am with you totally, I wrote a blog about this called "The Great Plugin Purge" and took a lot of words to say exactly what you just wrote. Of course, I then went and bought skme more plugins but that's a different story.
    brandondrury likes this.
  5. bobbybovine's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Oh I can relate to the mega option plug in mess!! Of course all my plugs are freeware so no money wasted right?? Well no money but lots of time. I just uninstalled a bunch that I downloaded and never used or at least not well. I am totally taking to heart the experienced guys comments when they say learn to use a select few "WELL" instead of being mediocre at best on 100's. If you can't get what you need from what you got, then go and search for something. Kakeux hit the nail on the head there!!
  6. brandondrury's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Yeah, I'd love to have my plugins reduced down to 10 processors that pretty much handle everything. Every time I think I find the plugin I want to marry, there's something about it that doesn't work in this or that situation. It's a pain in the ass to say the least. Hence, the collection grows.

    I'd really like to have a mixing template almost. I'd like to have a 1/4 delay, an 1/8 note delay, a big plate, a small room, and Eventide modulation all on my aux sends for every mix I start. It won't cover everything, but it should cover at least 65% a huge portion of the time. I guess I need to figure out how to make that work in Cubase.

    Brandon
  7. bobbybovine's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    The template thing is great and a huge time saver. I actually plan on spending the time to do genre specific templates with all basic bus and effects already in place. I have one basic template now that instead of 20 mins to set up everything only takes less than 5 and then I am mixing. I am sure it will improve over time as well. I am surprised you aren't using templates Brandon, seems like some efficiency can be had there.
  8. paul999's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I actually have a giant template now. It has all my i/o routing done and all the usual plugs I use on a track already lined up. My aux sends are all set up. The plug ins are bypassed but it is a huge time saver. I've begun to store many presets on plugs as well.
  9. brandondrury's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I am surprised you aren't using templates Brandon, seems like some efficiency can be had there.
    My inefficiency in this department is uncharacteristic of me, but typical of a guy spreading himself too thin. It's ironic and tell-tale that the spread-too-thin guy doesn't have an efficient template.

    Brandon
  10. paul999's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Originally Posted by brandondrury
    My inefficiency in this department is uncharacteristic of me, but typical of a guy spreading himself too thin. It's ironic and tell-tale that the spread-too-thin guy doesn't have an efficient template.

    Brandon
    That was me until a few months ago. After working totally analog I got it how a template might work after all analog is basically a template.

    A template is a state of mind as much as it is a tool. I didn't want to be limited until I realized that being limited was liberating I honestly wouldn't recommend a template to people just getting going. It takes years of experimentation to know what your tools of choice are. Of course Brandon doesn't fit into this category.
  11. bobbybovine's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I honestly wouldn't recommend a template to people just getting going. It takes years of experimentation to know what your tools of choice are.
    I would fall in the somewhat newbie category and I actually do find my basic template a big help. You have to know what you want you template to achieve for you though so yeah you would need some mixes under your belt to understand that. I am not even recording, only mixing. Once I get to actually recording I see HUGE efficiency possibilities with a template. But I am a nerd that is actually concerned about workflow. I think most "beginners" don't really think of workflow at all which is the biggest benefit of a using a template.
  12. AndiP's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Originally Posted by brandondrury
    Yeah, I'd love to have my plugins reduced down to 10 processors that pretty much handle everything. Every time I think I find the plugin I want to marry, there's something about it that doesn't work in this or that situation. It's a pain in the ass to say the least. Hence, the collection grows.

    I'd really like to have a mixing template almost. I'd like to have a 1/4 delay, an 1/8 note delay, a big plate, a small room, and Eventide modulation all on my aux sends for every mix I start. It won't cover everything, but it should cover at least 65% a huge portion of the time. I guess I need to figure out how to make that work in Cubase.

    Brandon
    Pretty well exactly what I do in Cubase - the stock set-up rarely lasts through thte tweaking stage of a mix but heck you always need to start somewhere and this makes it trivially easy to try-out ideas.