Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Matthew Knischewsky" data-source="post: 131601" data-attributes="member: 1109">Re: Analog comeback?Dave, the comment I&#039;m about to make is not about you, or your mix because I&#039;ve (probably) never heard you mix but it brings to mind a point I wanted to make earlier.Back in the old days you&#039;d have a rack or racks of outboard gear and you&#039;d interface it with the console and together that would make up the tools you&#039;d have available. A bigger or higher profile gig would usually mean you&#039;d have more toys to play with while at the lower end of the scale you&#039;d have less. In either case at the beginning of the gig you&#039;d have to take an inventory of the processing you had and, using your experience, connect it in such a way that you thought it would work best. Comps here, gates there etc, maybe with some left over just in case. As you learned to mix you&#039;d gain experience connecting and working all of this gear, and as you got better at mixing you&#039;d get better gigs with more toys in the rack, more features on the console. I think the general tendency now is to over process simply because the toys are there. I&#039;m certainly not hearing a vast improvement from bands who&#039;s engineers are carrying digital consoles or files for consoles. It seems that the time savings of not setting up an analog system is taken up by adjusting the processing to obtain the supposed perfect sound for an individual source, while missing that the mix is what happens when it&#039;s all combined together.The best mixes I hear are from guys who walk up to the console, analog or digital, and just mix. It always seems the best sound guys and girls can pull off great mixes with a minimum of help from the processing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Matthew Knischewsky, post: 131601, member: 1109"] Re: Analog comeback? Dave, the comment I'm about to make is not about you, or your mix because I've (probably) never heard you mix but it brings to mind a point I wanted to make earlier. Back in the old days you'd have a rack or racks of outboard gear and you'd interface it with the console and together that would make up the tools you'd have available. A bigger or higher profile gig would usually mean you'd have more toys to play with while at the lower end of the scale you'd have less. In either case at the beginning of the gig you'd have to take an inventory of the processing you had and, using your experience, connect it in such a way that you thought it would work best. Comps here, gates there etc, maybe with some left over just in case. As you learned to mix you'd gain experience connecting and working all of this gear, and as you got better at mixing you'd get better gigs with more toys in the rack, more features on the console. I think the general tendency now is to over process simply because the toys are there. I'm certainly not hearing a vast improvement from bands who's engineers are carrying digital consoles or files for consoles. It seems that the time savings of not setting up an analog system is taken up by adjusting the processing to obtain the supposed perfect sound for an individual source, while missing that the mix is what happens when it's all combined together. The best mixes I hear are from guys who walk up to the console, analog or digital, and just mix. It always seems the best sound guys and girls can pull off great mixes with a minimum of help from the processing. [/QUOTE]

Verification