Mixing boards: I don't get it

[stranger0]

ok, so this is a question that has bugged me for a while.

Why is it, that when we have a laptop which has a built in mixer in the DAW, people still use an actual console?

I understand that you can add more channels to what you are recording (rather put a large number of channels into 1 channel in your daw) and that makes sense but is there any other reason you would do this?

 

[baba]

I've used one in a simple setup just for the preamps.

Like you said, you can also use it as a sub mixer if you are limited by your interface's number of inputs.

 

[FretFree]

Are we talking mixing console (old school/live stuff) or a control surface?

HUGE difference there.

 

[DocBop]

Some people like the tactile feel of a knob or fader they are more sensitive than dragging a mouse. Some came up using consoles (like me) and like the visual aspect of a console. So it's all personal taste.

 

[markblasco]

Two big reasons:

1 - It is cheaper to get 24 preamps buying a mixer than buying 24 stand alone preamps, and it is a lot less of a hassle to setup.

2 - It allows for 0 latency monitoring while recording. This is something that can be a problem, because if what you are hearing is coming out of the headphones a split second late due to the computer processing, that will throw you off. A lot of people run the monitor/headphone sends from the mixer before going into the computer, therefor allowing you to hear what is going on with no delay.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Some people like the tactile feel of a knob or fader they are more sensitive than dragging a mouse. Some came up using consoles (like me) and like the visual aspect of a console. So it's all personal taste.

+1

 

[droskobass]

the pre amps!

I record through an SSL G+. can't beat that.
check out Link Removed

 

[Rickett Customs]

ok, so this is a question that has bugged me for a while.

Why is it, that when we have a laptop which has a built in mixer in the DAW, people still use an actual console?

I understand that you can add more channels to what you are recording (rather put a large number of channels into 1 channel in your daw) and that makes sense but is there any other reason you would do this?

Ok,
The first question, by DAW, do you mean an actual mixer on an input interface or in the program itself?

I can give you an example, I use a Digidesign 002 factory (8 channel) (the interface that has the mixing console instead of the rack version.) I also use an additional 8 channel mic/instrument pre, via "light pipe" to add 8 more inputs (simultaneous 16 channel recording).

Now I will also use a Mackie 244-VLZ PRO, which connects a 24 channel snake for inputs and "direct outs" that go to the Digidesign console and the 8 channel pre as well.
IME, IMO, It makes it easier for me to "centralize" all the inputs, leave my settings (input gains on the interfaces) at low levels for the interfaces and also I can use the left over channels to run external effects, if I wish, that in turn can run into protools.

You can also submix several inputs into a single channel or stereo channel too. Adding an external mixer console can expand the possiblities or make you a bit more flexable, depending how creative you can get with it.

 

[51m0n]

Whilst a computer derived recording system allows huge expandability over a pure hardware (read mixer and external recording solution), you cant beat a mixing desk as an interface to manipulating many tracks of audio.

1 control per operation is very hard to do well against a DAW (and none do it as well as a mixer does just yet, although the most expensive are getting very very very close), and that is what makes a mixer shine, everything has a place, and a logical one at that, and that place doesn't keep moving around either.

I design and implement GUIs for a living (well manage that design/implementation process these days) and a good mixing desk really does hit all the right spots for good design.

 

[hunta]

2 - It allows for 0 latency monitoring while recording. This is something that can be a problem, because if what you are hearing is coming out of the headphones a split second late due to the computer processing, that will throw you off. A lot of people run the monitor/headphone sends from the mixer before going into the computer, therefor allowing you to hear what is going on with no delay.

Most interfaces offer no latency monitoring these days. Not sure about the single/dual input types but the bigger multichannel interfaces do. So using a mixer for that is just redundant.

the pre amps!

Oh yes. This is the reason. And the bus compressors. And the "magic". If your mixer/console doesn't make your audio sound better just by running through it, get rid of it! Basically, unless you're on an SSL or Neve or something along those lines, you probably don't need a hardware mixer. The exception being that you're trying to run 15 inputs into a 2 input interface, then you need a mixer.

 

[BetterBottomEnd]

Plus its pretty tough to move five channels at a time with you mouse.

 

[makaky]

Most interfaces offer no latency monitoring these days. Not sure about the single/dual input types but the bigger multichannel interfaces do. So using a mixer for that is just redundant.

Oh yes. This is the reason. And the bus compressors. And the "magic". If your mixer/console doesn't make your audio sound better just by running through it, get rid of it! Basically, unless you're on an SSL or Neve or something along those lines, you probably don't need a hardware mixer. The exception being that you're trying to run 15 inputs into a 2 input interface, then you need a mixer.

Im working on an album with Pro-tools HD and i can still feel the latency.

I miss those Studer tape recorders

 

[bluestarbass]

I used to have this same philosophy. When I was a young recording engineer in school I grew up working in the box. Theres lots of reasons to use a console, but my biggest one is probably sound. Consoles just sound so much better than keeping things in the box, Although I will say this gap is getting smaller, and is more or less my opinion. Your routing options are unlimited. My board is small, 24 channel frame, but I'm still able to route and do crazier things soo much easier than in the box. Sometimes Ill even switch over to my tape machine and be completely out of the box.

 

[stranger0]

Ok,
The first question, by DAW, do you mean an actual mixer on an input interface or in the program itself?

I always thought DAW referred to the program you are using to record, in my case, Logic.

 

[stranger0]

I guess as far as latency goes, the easier thing with all this is that if you use the mixer, your computer will thank you for saving some energy as its only working with 1 channel instead of 10 but then you lose the control over those 10 tracks.

I get what everyones saying about it being a philosophy, maybe an art, thankfully I've got 4 gigs of ram on my macbook

 

[seamonkey]

ok, so this is a question that has bugged me for a while.

Why is it, that when we have a laptop which has a built in mixer in the DAW, people still use an actual console?

I understand that you can add more channels to what you are recording (rather put a large number of channels into 1 channel in your daw) and that makes sense but is there any other reason you would do this?

Whatever floats your boat I guess. I prefer to get it into the digital domain as soon as possible. Where I can control and automate it.

I have plenty of knobs on my midi controllers, but a BCR2000 is cheap enough. The BCF2000 sliders follow the on screen automation. I'd like to try some of the new multi-touch screens. They look interesting.

Digidesign proved through their null testing and blind tests that they can fully emulate the "sound" of an analog console.

 

[fokof]

Personaly , I use all ITB mixing but with an external control surface.


I love to have real fader and knobs .....

 

[hentor]

Plus its pretty tough to move five channels at a time with you mouse.

+1 (especially when some faders are going up and the others are going down)

Plus when doing mixing, I often find mixing a "performance" of sorts and one fader has to be raised while another lowered at the same time...but the amounts depends on the entire sonic blend at that time...

 

[Rickett Customs]

I always thought DAW referred to the program you are using to record, in my case, Logic.

The 2 will define as:

DAWs generally come in two varieties:

* Computer-based DAWs consist of three components: a computer, an ADC-DAC, and digital audio editor software. The computer acts as a host for the sound card and software and provides processing power for audio editing. The sound card acts as an audio interface, typically converting analog audio signals into digital form, and may also assist in processing audio. The software controls the two hardware components and provides a user interface to allow for recording and editing. Many radio stations in the U.S. prefer using computer-based DAWs over integrated DAWs.

* Integrated DAWs consist of a mixing console, control surface, and digital interface in one device. Integrated DAWs were more popular before personal computers became powerful enough to run DAW software. As computer power increased and price decreased, the popularity of the costly integrated systems dropped. However, systems such as the Orban Audicy once flourished in the radio and television markets. Today, some systems still offer computerless arranging and recording features with a full graphical user interface, such as the Roland MV-8000, Roland MV-8800 and recent Mackie HDR-series hard disk recorders.

 

[hunta]

+1 (especially when some faders are going up and the others are going down)

Plus when doing mixing, I often find mixing a "performance" of sorts and one fader has to be raised while another lowered at the same time...but the amounts depends on the entire sonic blend at that time...

That's what automation is for. I haven't had to do a "performance" mixing since my band recorded an album on ADAT back around 1995.

Control surfaces are great if you want tactile knobs and faders, but those are not real mixing boards. The audio never passes through them.

Im working on an album with Pro-tools HD and i can still feel the latency.

That doesn't say a lot for the Pro-tools HD interface I guess? The interfaces that I've used don't have this problem (most interfaces have "zero" latency monitoring options). It's not going to be 100% latency free because audio still needs to pass the AD-DA converter, but it's pretty damn close. My band always practices through a Tascam FW interface and everyone uses headphone monitoring, there is no noticeable latency of any kind.