KVR Audio

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:39 pm

mixers are good when you want to mix in your software.

Sometimes, a single channel of audio is not enough!

bMachine · Post by **bMachine** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:02 pm

superddman wrote: For mastering, it could be visually better to have a separate mixer, but for normal production I don't think it plays any advantage, only a drawback. Even for mastering if the controls are nicely positioned on the arrange window, it will be very easy to do so.

Do you know what is mastering?
This is post-mixing a master, as to say, when your mix is finished and rendered, then it`s again done in progs like WaveLab or Sonic Forge.
No mixers in mastering programs.

I use Cubase, and minimal view of mixer is always open during composing/arranging stage, even SX has vol/pan controls on a left side, it is faster to go on mixer.
I use 1600x1200 resolution, one monitor, so there is enough space..
But, if you apply all FX during composing, this is some philosophy I tend to avoid (of course, I apply filters, delays and other processing FX that really makes the sound, but compressing and reverb is something that I do later, when I have all sounds layered and start to make sonic images of song...)

But when doing a mix, (almost) all you need is - mixer.
I even close tracks sometimes, always they are on minimal view (just for visual orientation of song position).
Mixer viev is essential then.

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:02 pm

snooky wrote:mixers are good when you want to mix in your software

but still only when you personally prefer using a hardware emulating sequencer / host rather than another method such as vector mixing ...

... while you can mix using a mixer (whether real or virtual) ... you dont necessarily need a mixer to mix ...

(im obviously talking about the interface (hard or soft) here ... im well aware the process beneath the surface is going to be the same however you control it)

slainte

rob

donkey tugger · Post by **donkey tugger** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:04 pm

What's the workflow paradigm daw this week keith?

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:07 pm

While you can turn off the light at the switch ... you dont necessarily need to. You could don an asbestos glove and remove the bulb.

CypherOne · Post by **CypherOne** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:09 pm

confucius say "man who keep beer warm, bit of a c**t".

bMachine · Post by **bMachine** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:30 pm

if Confucious knew Beethoven, he will say:
"Only a great man can mix deaf"

ericj23 · Post by **ericj23** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:33 pm

i actually wonder which host it is where you can't mix from the main page anyway - sort of makes all the heat a bit wasted

any takers

popsych · Post by **popsych** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:09 pm

pHz wrote:
snooky wrote:mixers are good when you want to mix in your software
but still only when you personally prefer using a hardware emulating sequencer / host rather than another method such as vector mixing ...

... while you can mix using a mixer (whether real or virtual) ... you dont necessarily need a mixer to mix ...

(im obviously talking about the interface (hard or soft) here ... im well aware the process beneath the surface is going to be the same however you control it)

slainte rob

How do you envisage vector mixing exactly ?

From what i know of the only host that relates to those two terms is tracktion cause it has a VECTOR graphic based interface and has a MIXER too. I am familiar with the actual term but i'm not aware of any host that mixes this way. Would be immensely inconvienient.

original flipper · Post by **original flipper** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:45 pm

HI

A little off-Topic: Reggae and in particular istrumental versions of vocal tracks (Dub) was practically always mixed on the fly - no automation at all!

Practically impossible to replicate in software, unless you bring in automation.

As a for instance, try muting a track whilst simultaneously driving up an fx return and sweeping the midrange eq to create a muted full stop sweeping delay with variable feedback!

I have heard countless 'old' Dub tunes where feedback has smashed through a mix or mutes have been fed back through returns to hear a wet signal.

To automate a Dub track nowdays might take a whole day - it would have previously taken perhaps an hour - so much for technology!

Flipper.

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:56 pm

popsych wrote:
pHz wrote:
snooky wrote:mixers are good when you want to mix in your software
but still only when you personally prefer using a hardware emulating sequencer / host rather than another method such as vector mixing ...
... while you can mix using a mixer (whether real or virtual) ... you dont necessarily need a mixer to mix ...
(im obviously talking about the interface (hard or soft) here ... im well aware the process beneath the surface is going to be the same however you control it)
slainte rob
How do you envisage vector mixing exactly ?
From what i know of the only host that relates to those two terms is tracktion cause it has a VECTOR graphic based interface and has a MIXER too. I am familiar with the actual term but i'm not aware of any host that mixes this way. Would be immensely inconvienient.

as i understand it (so quite possibly wrong) ...

... vector mixing is sorting / adjusting your levels directly onto the timeline using whatever tools your host has for the job (and obviously some hosts make this easier than others) ... you could of course use a 'traditional' mixer interface to record level changes etc and then fine tune these directly on the timeline ...

... please dont think im saying its any better than your hardware emulation mixer (as i said under the skin the process is the same) but for some people (me definitely included) it just makes more sense to do it this way (in both tracktion and live4) than to do it via a recognisable mixer 'console' ... never having used a real one other than my little toy behringer thing it just doesnt seem comfortable to use a virtual one either ...

slainte

rob

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:59 pm

Most hosts supply a decent way to control fx, pan and volume, so stfu already?

superddman · Post by **superddman** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:23 pm

stefancrs wrote:Most hosts supply a decent way to control fx, pan and volume, so stfu already?

Yes, lots of them do. I am not saying none of them do.

And actually you are stating a good finding. More and more of the new versions of sequencers utilize this idea of the mixer controls inside of the arrange window.

I guess, at the end of the day we will stick with what we are used to.

popsych · Post by **popsych** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:57 pm

pHz wrote:
popsych wrote:
pHz wrote:
snooky wrote:mixers are good when you want to mix in your software
but still only when you personally prefer using a hardware emulating sequencer / host rather than another method such as vector mixing ...
... while you can mix using a mixer (whether real or virtual) ... you dont necessarily need a mixer to mix ...
(im obviously talking about the interface (hard or soft) here ... im well aware the process beneath the surface is going to be the same however you control it)
slainte rob
How do you envisage vector mixing exactly ?
From what i know of the only host that relates to those two terms is tracktion cause it has a VECTOR graphic based interface and has a MIXER too. I am familiar with the actual term but i'm not aware of any host that mixes this way. Would be immensely inconvienient.
as i understand it (so quite possibly wrong) ...

... vector mixing is sorting / adjusting your levels directly onto the timeline using whatever tools your host has for the job (and obviously some hosts make this easier than others) ... you could of course use a 'traditional' mixer interface to record level changes etc and then fine tune these directly on the timeline ...

... please dont think im saying its any better than your hardware emulation mixer (as i said under the skin the process is the same) but for some people (me definitely included) it just makes more sense to do it this way (in both tracktion and live4) than to do it via a recognisable mixer 'console' ... never having used a real one other than my little toy behringer thing it just doesnt seem comfortable to use a virtual one either ...

slainte rob

Not being an expert myself i think the term is not appropriately used.

On the topic, i personally use Samplitude for mixing which allows to have practially everything my mixer does in the arrangement window. For me the only controls that i use are Mute Solor Pan and volume off the arrangement window while i'm creating a draft mix to make producing bearable. When i want to actually mix stuff it's mixer all the way mate. I think the separation of the two processes and concetrating on "how can i make this sound better" as opposed to : "How can i make this more interesting. Would a breakbeat there liven things up " is quite helpful in getting a mix right. Call me chicken brain but that's me

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:08 pm

as ever in this game mate ... its whatever works for you ...

... or me ...

... just wish more people would remember that round here

slainte

rob

What's the point of mixers in software sequencers?