Internal Vs External Mixdowns

[jasedee]

I hear this statement alot....

"The summing of the internal busses on a DAW are done with numbers, not voltages, so this is your biggest compromise. A better option would be mixing through an analogue console...."

So my question is this: When mixing down, is it better to take my main mix (on my Mackie stereo line channel) and route it back into the computer to record the mixdown, or just do it internally (export/bounce to stereo) in my DAW????

What do you guys reckon (do you even care?)

Jase

[grs]

Originally Posted by jasedee

So my question is this: When mixing down, is it better to take my main mix (on my Mackie stereo line channel) and route it back into the computer to record the mixdown, or just do it internally (export/bounce to stereo) in my DAW????

If you did that your not getting any analog summing. Summing is adding.
You need more than one stereo out, at least 4 stereo pairs if you've got them, more is better. Send different parts of your mix to different hardware outputs, they will get summed/added/mixed in your Mackie. Record the stereo mix from your Mackie to your PC.
Even if you dont use the Mackie eqs, gain, faders(leave them at 0/unity) you may hear the improvement.
I hear it all the time.
Yes, I care. IMO digital summing is a compromise, just like VA synths. The payoffs are there for digital like cost, more channels etc, but something happens in those wires in the real world where atoms meet.

[jasedee]

What about the signal degradation due to more DA/AD conversion? Is it a toss up between better mix, and more degradation???

[grs]

Well its certainly not if your analog audio path is half decent.
I have some old Adat AI3 coverters - 24bit 44.1/48 8 chan. They sound fine, steer away from in the computer DAs.
I did some A/B tests after reading your post just to re-assure myself.
I could audition my analog summed mix against a digital summed mix with the same overal level at the output.

In the digital summed mix:
Only the loudest sound at any time is well defined.
Background level sounds lost some 3d position.
Hi hats were slightly stiff or brittle.
The kick was 2D, in that the empasis was on the 500hz to 1Khz.
The bass line was there but it masked most other detailed synth lines.

In the analog summed mix:
95% of the instrument levels and frequency balance was identical to the digitaly summed mix. The other 5% is where the good stuff happens.
Like the Bass and Kik can exist in the same frequency and both still be heard.
The lower bass (SUB 100hz) had organic power and space.
The tails of reverbs and delays stayed in focus, not smeared or lost.
Hi hats and other highs (7Kz to 20Khz) took less toll on the ears.
Nice lower level sounds stayed nice and could offer nice color even with a monster bass infront of them.

Think about all the DIGITALY compromised frequencies (say any wave shape you want to represent over 5Khz, in a 44.1/48khz mix) along with DIGITALY compromised loudness information (does anyone remember 8bit sound? what about 12bit?). Then get channels and channels of information you want to represent and make a mathematical picture of them and send it to just one DA.

The hidden benifit is that each sub group or sound you send to a DA sub mix bus can be louder (before clipping digitally) so you get a bit more dimension in each and every track.

Anyway the only way to believe is to prove it to yourself.

[jasedee]

Well its certainly not if your analog audio path is half decent.
I have some old Adat AI3 coverters - 24bit 44.1/48 8 chan. They sound fine, steer away from in the computer DAs.

What do you call half decent? I definately wouldnt put my Mackie 1402VLZ in that category. I would though, put my Studer 169 in this category, but with old analogue, I would be introducing alot more hiss and noise into the audio, not to mention having to rebalance my mix as the line inputs are not calibrated....

Anyway the only way to believe is to prove it to yourself.

Yep...thats true! Now, do you have any methods for grouping tracks..

For example, would you group all drum tracks together, all synth bass together, synth leads together etc.....does this matter?

If I were to run 4 stereo sub mixes into my Mackie mixer, could I use my stereo line channels, and keep them panned centre, or do you have to run them into mono channels and pan each pair hard left/right (or keep them centred?)

You will probably blast me for the last question, as it seems this is something I should know really...

Thanks for all the help/feedback....It is very interesting stuff..

[Blank]

all this analogue crap and digital crap...the only reason analogue supposedly sounds better is because it adds noise to the mix, which inturn fools the ears enough to make is sound fuller!! Its all preference...there is no better!!

peace
Blank

[Hollowcell]

Originally Posted by Blank

all this analogue crap and digital crap...the only reason analogue supposedly sounds better is because it adds noise to the mix, which inturn fools the ears enough to make is sound fuller!! Its all preference...there is no better!!

peace
Blank

Hehehe, interesting comments there Blank. You have never recorded any "real" instruments I'm guessing.

I supose by "noise" you actually mean "warmth" - is that right?

[jasedee]

Originally Posted by Blank

all this analogue crap and digital crap...the only reason analogue supposedly sounds better is because it adds noise to the mix, which inturn fools the ears enough to make is sound fuller!! Its all preference...there is no better!!

Thats like saying that all synths sound the same, and Casio is no different to Virus.....

Why do you think all big studios still record to analogue tape, using analogue desk (Mmmm...Neve!) and preamps, and then use Vintage analogue processing (Mmmm....Urei!)

Tape, tubes, and transformers all add characteristic, harmonic distortion to the signal, musically pleasing.....3rd and 5th harmonics I believe (Mmm...analogue!)

Digital is decieving. Just because there is no apparent noise (Hiss), you think your signal is cleaner, but you are really only getting two 3rds of the information, the top third, which is the clearest and most well defined, but all the texture and character is lost in those last, insignificant bits....

Insignificant indeed!!! Bah......

And why do you think digital is so obsessed with 'emulating' analogue sound.....UAD-1's, VA's, tape emulators etc..

You obviously have not heard good analogue...cos if you had, you wouldnt say something like what you said.

When you think about those big, hit records (pop) with those lush drums, phat guitars, gorgeous vocals, think analogue mate. Think Neve, think teletronix, think Urei, think vintage, think tubes, and think tape....(oh yeah, and think Manley) cos this equipment is what is giving you those big, polished, gorgeous sounds....

[Blank]

i have recorded plenty of real instruments...i did rock for 10 years...

warmth...yeah it sounds like warmth...but it really isnt!! Its noise that fills the empty frequencies...im not saying its a bad thing...

peace
Blank

[jasedee]

Originally Posted by Blank

i have recorded plenty of real instruments...i did rock for 10 years...

warmth...yeah it sounds like warmth...but it really isnt!! Its noise that fills the empty frequencies...im not saying its a bad thing...

The noise is inherrant within these types of circuits, but it is texture, not the noise you hear.

Everyone can hear the noise, and it is definately not the noise filling in that space...it is the texture, the body, the tail.....