Members 144dB Posted July 8, 2011 Members Share Posted July 8, 2011 Hey all, Just curious... When it comes to the big names (e.g. Allen Sides, Bob Clearmountain, Bruce Swedien, Alan Parsons, Chuck Ainlay, etc.), we know that they use one DAW or another for most projects. But given the hardware and consoles at their disposal, I'm wondering if they just use the DAW like a multitrack tape recorder, or if they actually mix in the box (presumably with a hardware control surface of some kind). I don't want to get into a debate about analog summing vs. digital summing (and I'm not going near the "I still say analog..." thread), but I'm more curious from a workflow perspective. I've never seen a room belonging to a big name that didn't have a fairly large console in it, and I presume they are using it for more than just mic pre's and tracking. Just curious -- Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted July 8, 2011 CMS Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 People who can use whatever they choose usually base their choice on the individual project (which includes the budget). Not all of these guys work on unlimited budget or even large budget projects all the time. Wasn't too long ago that I wrote an article by George Massenberg in which he said that he does a lot of low budget projects for new artists and that pretty much necessitates using a DAW because of the cost of facilities. But if he has a budget to work in a studio with a real console and he thinks that will work better for the project, he'll go for it. Same with any of them, I guess. I expect, though, that any of them that use a hybrid approach don't use the DAW just as a recorder, but also as an editor and probably at times a signal processor. If someone likes a plug-in EQ better than what's on his console of choice, he'll probably use that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted July 8, 2011 Members Share Posted July 8, 2011 Yeah, what Mike said. People do whatever's appropriate for the project. Any big studio still has (usually) an SSL, though, and people definitely use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ronan Murphy Posted July 9, 2011 Members Share Posted July 9, 2011 The majority of big mixers that I am aware of in pop and rock use hybrid mixing set ups. Most are analog consoles supplemented with plug ins, but quite a few do not use consoles, but supplement their mixes with lots of analog hardware. Off the top of my head Serban Ghenea is the one really big mixer I can think of that mixes totally ITB (so I have been told) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted July 9, 2011 Members Share Posted July 9, 2011 Most of the big-time remix guys work ITB because that's where it starts and finishes. I have met a couple who use analog mixers, but usually more as a control surface than anything else. Although I'm not a "big name classical recording guy," for the classical projects I do everything is in the box because there are so few tracks it makes sense to send them directly to the final format rather than go through the intermediate stage of analog, then back to digital for distribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Extreme Mixing Posted July 9, 2011 Members Share Posted July 9, 2011 The older fellows that you mentioned probably use analogue consoles. Younger guys are going to be mostly in the box, but with some hardware involved in the mix. It's becoming less and less important. Dave Pensado uses quite a bit of in the box processing. Mick Guzauski is pretty happy working in Pro Tools on an ICON. He still loves his Sony though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 144dB Posted July 9, 2011 Author Members Share Posted July 9, 2011 Thanks guys, I guess my preconception about the big names comes from photographs more than anything... Usually when you see a top engineer photographed, they're leaning over a mammoth console. I guess it's no different than a guitar player holding a guitar. If I saw a top engineer photographed with a mouse, it might look out of place. But it's interesting that ITB is becoming more common. In my own life, everything is ITB (with the exception of my little Mackie that I use for preamps and inputs), but I'd really like to get a control surface at some point. Mixing with a mouse and scrolling over a large console can be tedious. But in my upgrade plan, it's low on the priority list. Thanks again, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted July 9, 2011 Members Share Posted July 9, 2011 I'd really like to get a control surface at some point. Mixing with a mouse and scrolling over a large console can be tedious. But in my upgrade plan, it's low on the priority list. After you get your control surface, you'll kick yourself for not having placed it higher on your priority list. I hate mixing with a mouse. Editing, yes. Mixing - hell no. A mouse is a monophonic device in a polyphonic world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ronan Murphy Posted July 9, 2011 Members Share Posted July 9, 2011 Thanks guys, I guess my preconception about the big names comes from photographs more than anything... Usually when you see a top engineer photographed, they're leaning over a mammoth console. I guess it's no different than a guitar player holding a guitar. If I saw a top engineer photographed with a mouse, it might look out of place. No, its because so many of the biggest mixers in the world are still mixing lots of records with consoles. Chris Lord Alge, Tom Lord Alge, Jack Joseph Puig, Andy Wallace, Bob Clearmountain, David Botril, Rich Costey, Michael Brauer, Randy Staub, Allen Sides, Mike Shipley, Chuck Ainlay. Not to say a few of these guys do not sometimes mix some things ITB but most of their big credits are mixed on consoles. Even if the world of orchestral music for films many of the A-listers are still mixing on analog consoles. As stated in this the original post, this is not about which is better, but the reality is that outside of hip-hop and dance music, when given the choice most of the top tier mixers, mix on analog consoles. The stars of the next generation may change this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted July 9, 2011 Members Share Posted July 9, 2011 What Ronan said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted July 9, 2011 Members Share Posted July 9, 2011 After you get your control surface, you'll kick yourself for not having placed it higher on your priority list. I hate mixing with a mouse. Editing, yes. Mixing - hell no. A mouse is a monophonic device in a polyphonic world Boy ain't that the truth. That's what I love about my new Allen & Heath board: It's an analog console AND a control surface. Or any combination at any given time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted July 9, 2011 Members Share Posted July 9, 2011 The stars of the next generation may change this. But only if they replace the console with a control surface! Any sonic differences aside, AFAIC having Real Faders makes for better mixes. I still think of a mix as performance, not editing. You can't perform with a mouse. I would never take Ableton Live on stage without a control surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lucky #9 Posted July 10, 2011 Members Share Posted July 10, 2011 But only if they replace the console with a control surface! Any sonic differences aside, AFAIC having Real Faders makes for better mixes. I still think of a mix as performance, not editing.You can't perform with a mouse. I would never take Ableton Live on stage without a control surface. Craig - just curious...what are you currently using as a control surface when you mix at home.I know you had the Behringer BCF2000 (I think) at one time. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted July 10, 2011 Members Share Posted July 10, 2011 I'm using the Roland VS-700 designed for Sonar (but it's Mackie-compatible, so I use it with Vegas, Reason, and other programs as well as Sonar) and for Ableton Live, depending on the application APC40+APC20, Peavey PC-1600 (it's the long-throw faders!), or APC40+Launchpad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 144dB Posted July 11, 2011 Author Members Share Posted July 11, 2011 There is a long list of things I need to upgrade before getting a control surface... Right now I'm focused on my room (I've been building bass traps this summer, with pretty good results). Next in line is a new PC (I'm still running an Athlon XP circa 2003). And when that happens, I'll get all new 64 bit software to replace Cubase SX, Wavelab 5, and HALion 2.x. Most of my other plug-ins will be compatible. I'll be more convinced of the value of a control surface once I see how well they integrate with Cubase. With so many parameters available, it's important to me that the controller can get to many of them quickly, without much thought. And I suspect it will set me back a grand or more, as one with LCD strips and LED crowns isn't going to come cheap (e.g. the Mackie Universal, etc.). In the "dream fund" is an SSL Nucleus... But that will be several years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.