How "Inside The Box" Are You?

[Jeff da Weasel]

It seems that for convenience's sake, more and more doods I know are doing everything in the box, never having audio leave the computer until the very end stage.

 

There's nothing wrong with that. It can be done very well. However, IMHO, for quality;s sake, there are occasions where I'd rather turn to an outboard processor, or do some hardware processing prior to input (i.e. compression).

 

What's your take? Is the convenience factor worth some degree of compromise in your sound? Is the problem mostly having to do with the pain in the ass of interfacing the audio back and forth?

 

- Jeff

[Rodney Gene]

Originally posted by Jeff da Weasel What's your take? Is the convenience factor worth some degree of compromise in your sound? - Jeff

No...it's not worth the compromise but I do it anyhow...!! Cause...

 

Is the problem mostly having to do with the pain in the ass of interfacing the audio back and forth?

Yep.

 

And maybe because plugins are so 'acceptable' to me now...or maybe cause I get lazy? My MP3 player doesn't care what I do.

 

 

P&B,

[Phil O'Keefe]

Hi Jeff - good topic!

 

Pardon the pun, but I use a "mixed approach"... I like and use plug ins, but I also use outboard stuff. For me, it's just a case of "more options, more tools in the toolbox to pick from".

 

ITB plug ins have a lot of advantages. You buy one plug in and you can use it on multiple tracks as you see fit. Things don't have to run through the converters again. All of the settings can be stored with the project backups and recalled just by reloading the session or song into your DAW.

 

OTOH, there are still some tones you can get from outboard processors that you just can't duplicate in software - for example, I've yet to hear a software compressor that could "do" what a Distressor does.... although I have been working on a review of Digidesign's new "Smack!" comp plug in, and I've been pleasantly surprised by some of the things I've been able to do with that plug.

 

I love my old Ensoniq DP/4's, and there are some sounds in those boxes that I just can't duplicate with plug ins... even if I try to match parameters exactly and then "tweak" them by ear to get them even closer sounding to each other. And yes, interfacing them to the DAW setup can be a bit of a PITA (a good outboard mixer can help with that ) but sometimes the sound I'm after demands I take the time and apply the extra effort for the sake of the tone.

 

I can understand that some people like the ITB approach, and it is certainly easier in some respects. And I can also understand why some folks like all analog, all the time - that's completely viable too. But IMO, it's about what I'm after, and what the client wants and what serves the song. If I can get what we're after with one tool, then so be it... but if I can't, and I have to reach for another tool, then I'll do so.

 

More tools = more options = "more good".

[Johnny Storm]

HELP! HELP! I'm trapped inside the box, and I can't get out!!!

 

Everything ITB here. Maybe occasionally some outboard processing while tracking - compression on the bass, that sort of thing. But usually, I'm 100% ITB.

[Johnny Storm]

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe OTOH, there are still some tones you can get from outboard processors that you just can't duplicate in software - for example, I've yet to hear a software compressor that could "do" what a Distressor does.... although I have been working on a review of Digidesign's new "Smack!" comp plug in, and I've been pleasantly surprised by some of the things I've been able to do with that plug.

This topic deserves its own thread, IMO. Lately, I've been having a blast using the L1 plug as a "Distressor" on the drums. I've been quite pleased with the results. Talk about "SMACK!!!"

[The Chinese]

Originally posted by Rodney Gene My MP3 player doesn't care what I do. P&B,

 

I think that statement kind of sums it up. ITB mixing is what you do in order to make a shrinking budget profitable. Outboard mixing with a huge console etc.etc. is what you do when you want to make it esoterically good....

 

At least to a point. I Mix ITB 99% of the time. I make some pretty decent Mixes. I have also heard mixes done with a Neve that sound (cough) awful.

 

The more important thing is to understand what you're doing and how to accomplish that on the tools you have. I am noticing a trend amongst many ITB mixers of doing the exact same thing to every piece of audio they see, rather than listening to see what track needs.

 

-Todd A.

[AudioMaverick]

As far as the audio environment is concerned... I grew up inside the box. I started when Syntrillium sent me this offer to upgrade *Cool Edit '96* to *Cool Edit Pro v1.0*. Other than the obvious microphones, 16-track console and A/D interface, I am totally software. That is, if a SansAmp doesn't qualify.

 

I am reorganizing my personal & professional life to allow this facit to have more of my time. As this grows, I am supposing I will be able to venture out of the box. I have to admit that having the 16 sliders in front of me really does make a difference to living on the mouse, too.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Wow, great post Todd.

 

Regardless of the tools used, I've heard good things and bad things. It's not that the gear doesn't matter - good gear can definitely make a difference - but IMO, the skill of the people using that gear makes even more of a difference. It's like handing a six year old Eric Clapton's guitar... or the keys to Jeff Gordon's stock car. You could give Clapton a bashed up old Silvertone, and Gordon a Yugo, and they're still going to perform better, strictly because of their capabilities and skills and their ability to get the best possible results out of them.

 

The more important thing is to understand what you're doing and how to accomplish that on the tools you have. I am noticing a trend amongst many ITB mixers of doing the exact same thing to every piece of audio they see, rather than listening to see what track needs.

 

Again, EXCELLENT point! It's not unusual for people to get into ruts and habits and use "what's worked in the past" - and sometimes when you're under the gun and don't have the time to experiment, you may have a reason to use your "go to" tricks, tools and techniques. But IMO, there's never an excuse for not listening. It's got to sound good... and if it doesn't, just because it worked on something else in the past doesn't mean you should just go ahead and use it anyway.

[rhythminmind]

when i started my home studio on a budget it was the the days (just a few years ago) of DA88's and mackies..

 

So my evolution of upgrading gear was based around best quality for the price.. I believe dropping hardware for software and just focusing on good Pre's, Mic's, and A/D's is the way to go....

 

i like the Bob katz mastering setup..

 

a minimalist all ITB with good mic's and good monitoring is the way to go for me...

 

but this is my everyday setup..

 

if the project i'm working on is has some money behind it.. Bring on the Studio time, some pulltec, a la2a here and there, and the 2". acutally i'd just track to 2" then bring it home..

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

Great monitoring is CRUCIAL AFAIC.

 

This is an auditory art... and as such, you base every decision you make on what you hear. IMO, there is no single area of a studio setup that is more critical than the monitoring. Great monitors allow you to hear what you're doing and a great room won't get in the way of that... if either of those isn't "happening" and is "lying" to you, then how in the heck are you going to make informed decisions?

 

I put a lot of money into the design and construction of my control room, and even more into my monitors (ADAM S3-A's, and modded, soffit mounted JBL 4412's), and I've never regretted those investments. They pay for themselves every single day.

 

While I LOVE my ADAM's, and I wouldn't want to mix on anything else, monitors are a very "personal" thing... every engineer has to find something that "works" for them and that they can get their heads around, and that will translate well for them and give them the results they want. It can be a bit of a hassle, and I've literally gone through dozens of sets of speakers in the past two decades, but once you find something you dig, the benefits are more than worth the effort IMO.

[The Chinese]

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe Great monitoring is CRUCIAL AFAIC. I put a lot of money into the design and construction of my control room, and even more into my monitors (ADAM S3-A's, and modded, soffit mounted JBL 4412's), and I've never regretted those investments. They pay for themselves every single day.

 

Right? This has got to be the one spot that is more damaging to home studio recording than any other. I see many a home studio amongst the cats i know, and rarely do I see a serious monitoring setup. One of my best friends, Noah Lifschey, who is a great music mixer, uses Mackie 624's in a terrible sounding bedroom. Not to knock the Mackies, because I think they're pretty decent, but there is so much money spent on Mic Pre's, Outboard stuff, Computers, I/O's Hard Drives etc etc. It's like the monitoring is an afterthought.

 

I spent as much on my monitoring as I spent on my ProTools Rig. seriously. I don't regret it either, cuz my room seriously rocks. ACDC has the balls it intended to have, even though I am primarily a Post sound Mixer these days.

 

It's a 5.1 M&K 2550 setup with a Bryston 9B, Ashly Protea EQ's. I love it!!!

 

peace,

 

-Todd A.

[Johnny Storm]

I love ADAMs - they're my favorite brand of monitors - but I must say that, for the money, HR-624s kick ass! They are certainly NOT an "afterthought."

[The Chinese]

Originally posted by Johnny Storm I love ADAMs - they're my favorite brand of monitors - but I must say that, for the money, HR-624s kick ass! They are certainly NOT an "afterthought."

 

Johnny-

 

I'm not trying to disparage the Mackies at all. I think they're fine monitors. I'm just showing how little is often spent on monitoring vs. other gear, that's all. I most certainly didn't mean to offend.

 

-Todd A.

[Johnny Storm]

Well, I wouldn't say I was "offended" so much as just "annoyed."

 

I'm not under the mistaken impression that Mackies are the world's greatest monitors, but I also don't think that your friend's mixes are suffering because of his 624s, either. Do you really think that?

[The Chinese]

Originally posted by Johnny Storm Well, I wouldn't say I was "offended" so much as just "annoyed." I'm not under the mistaken impression that Mackies are the world's greatest monitors, but I also don't think that your friend's mixes are suffering because of his 624s, either. Do you really think that?

 

Yes, in part, I do. Bear in mind that I am referring to the whole monitoring system, not just the speakers themselves. He goes through a ton of refinement to get the right sound.

 

You said it yourself - "For the money..." I completely agree!!! but let's compare the point Im' trying to make with his sytem:

 

A) PC Computer with 2Gig memory Athlon etc.etc.

B) Cubase SX

C) UA 2610 Mic Pre

D) Another PC

E) Gigastudio

F) Dual Monitors

 

 

 

That alone costs, what? 8,000? It must when you take into considerationthe money spent of software/plugins/ sound libraries etc.

 

Mackie 624's? $850?

 

So he's spending a lot more on his rig, not his monitoring. If he spent 8K on his monitoring, then I guarantee hs mixes would be better, with less effort.

 

-Todd A.

[badgererer]

To me its very simple, and I'm sure a lot of budget posters will relate - i have very little money, and there are plenty of good quality free plugins for all the effects you could ever dream of. When there are so many different elements to a home recording setup, and one of them is potentially free (although maybe not as good as the "real thing"), you're just gonna take that free element and go spend money elsewhere.

 

In my plans, "physical" effects rather than your VST plugin or whatnot are a long way down the line. They don't even factor yet.

[Rodney Gene]

I use 824's as my primary monitors cause personally they work for me for now...and they aren't 'above' and beyond the rest of my gear...they are equal to.

 

I did recently upgrade my room..now THAT was a significant difference.

 

If I had $3000 right now..I would NOT upgrade my monitors..there is just too many other 'weak' links and too many other ways to gain that added percentage.

 

For 3G's I would pick up an ADX-16 or a similiar quality of converter / clock setup..THEN I would be looking at better monitors...but maybe not until I sussed out more mics.

 

Now truthfully I may only be saying this because my mixing ability is only as good as the Mackie 824's (Which I honestly like)

 

But as Todd mentioned earlier (in a slightly different bend...) I have heard mixes on Adams and Gens that 'ahem'..(cough)...smelled like ass...And I have heard mixes from Alesis M1's that kicked ass...

 

So...Where is the ACTUAL weak point? It HAS to be different for every single person up to a point because none of us understand audio the same way.

 

The X factor is often overlooked....

 

P&B,

[Joe Cole]

I just read "Behind the Glass" and Frank Filipetti and another producer said in a nutshell....

 

-On the way in, outboard gear. After the AD conversion I stick with plugins.

 

The philosphy is that once the music was in a digital state, why convert it back to analog then back again. The signal degradation is to be avoided.

[geek_usa]

I stay in the box because frankly, I don't have any outboard gear at this point.

[gdoubleyou]

Now that my hardware synths are collecting dust, I'm totally in the box.

 

[alfonso]

My system is built around a "totally in the box" concept.

I've chosen to expand my Creamware Scope system to 3 cards, 25 Analog Devices SHARC chips, lotsa I/O's and a software with some top notch effects, great mixers, unbelievable routing between software drivers, dsp gear and physical I/O's,and the best dsp synths in the world.

 

Only things I have outside and connected are an Apogee MiniMe, a Yamaha tuner that I can reach from the Scope environment through an analog out of one of the cards, and a fantastic Davoli Krundaal vintage Spring reverb in perfect shape (changed all the caps), connected through analog I/O to a Scope Modular patch, containing eq's, envelope followers, sample delays and a bunch of other stuff to transform it to a stereo unit with time and depth control, to hook as an aux effect to the Scope mixer.

 

Naturally I have Guitars, Amps,a piccolo bouzuki, a neapolitan mandolin of the 19th century, an 88keys MC2000 master keyboard, lotsa percussive objects, a nice '73 little used and perfect condition all original U87i, some sennheiser dynamics, a couple of ADAM S2a, a couple of ns10 driven by a classA home integrated amp.

[Khazul]

 

Originally posted by The Chinese I am noticing a trend amongst many ITB mixers of doing the exact same thing to every piece of audio they see, rather than listening to see what track needs. -Todd A.

 

 

 

One of the greatest ironies I see with people using software like Cubase, Sonar or even Reason is how often people DONT touch the faders on the main mix, or maybe just use them to fade something in and out at most.

 

Instead many people just stick a compressor inline with generic settings for use as a auto-gain basically.

 

Even rarer is it that people automate the so-called mastering suite type plugins instead preferring to leave them on fixed brutal settings and wonder why everything just goes plop when the kick first hammers home on a track...

 

 

Maybe its only those of use who had to make do with one each of a few basic tools in hardware that got to understand (to some degree) how to make the best of any bit of gear and maybe when you can do better without it and instead just real time tweak something here and there during a mix down.

 

 

I guess theres another side to this story, I find that I actually dont like most post-production tool sets that come as VSTs labelled as mastering plugins - I hate the interfaces on most of them, and have never been happy with the sound they produce - maybe it just that I work best with real knobs that I can use to mold the sound, rather than fiddly tiny sliders and a fiddly UI.

 

Even using a control surface doesnt help much - more precision yes, but somehow its just aint the same - maybe the fiddling with a computer is too distracting to really focus on the sound properly at this stage?

 

Suprisingly, I *do* like the software post-production sets of modules in Reason 3 - maybe its because they work exactly like typical equivelent hardware and have the same interface. I dont know how good they are in real terms - Ive never compared them, but I can get good results with them.

[Khazul]

 

Originally posted by Rodney Gene But as Todd mentioned earlier (in a slightly different bend...) I have heard mixes on Adams and Gens that 'ahem'..(cough)...smelled like ass...And I have heard mixes from Alesis M1's that kicked ass... So...Where is the ACTUAL weak point? It HAS to be different for every single person up to a point because none of us understand audio the same way. The X factor is often overlooked.... P&B,

 

 

Part of the x-factor is probably just simply knowing you own gear and your own ears - more specifically, how what you hear in your every day production environment translates to the real world.

[rhythminmind]

just learn your monitors and test on multiple setups. thats all it is..

 

take NS10's there not good sounding monitors, people just know how they respond

[doug osborne]

 

Originally posted by Jeff da Weasel ..., for quality's sake, ...

 

 

Jeff,

 

Do you really mean "for character's sake"?