Analog mixer in Digital Audio?

[EC_Beast]

I'm sure it's been done...but my question is how. How do you take a mixer meant for the analog realm (Like an Allen and Heath) and enable it to work in a digital format, such as Pro Tools? Any suggestions and ideas would be most appreciated. Thanks!

[xstatic]

You can't completely integrate all of the functions between the two. However, if you have enough D/A converters you can certainly return individual channels from Pro Tools and do a more "conventional" style mix. The advantage here is that you get analog summing, on hands fader control and analog EQ's. The disadvantage comes with the extra D/A conversion (best to use quality converters if you go this route) and you will lose a lot of recallability.

[djui5]

Some analog consoles have a bit of control over Pro-Tools, like SSL XL9K's and such, but it's nothing like you'd expect.

[MidiMagic]

You can also use the preamps on the mixer if you have channel inserts or direct outs.

[Foreverain4]

might help to know what software/soundcard you are using... you will for sure need a soundcard with plenty of outputs. i, personally, use the motu 2408 in combo with an alesis hd24 to convert the audio from digital to analog. this gives me 24 outputs. i use the 24 outs like 12 stereo busses. i do all my fx and automation in the digital realm via software, then assign the tracks to each of the 12 busses which are sent out to my analog console. all the faders are set to uniform zero...

[EC_Beast]

Hmmmm. So when ever you see those huge format mixing consoles, like at NRG Studios, or at the Pop Factory, what exactly are they doing? Are they just basically using it not really for mixing per se, but more on the lines of recording, then breaking it up into all the individual tracks and giving them to a guy like Andy Wallace to mix?

[Audioholic]

EC_Beast

people can still mix on anaglog consoles if they prefer it. Big consoles usually have some form of automation (the expensive ones).. You can mix on these consoles if you prefer that to mixing with your mouse... Or you can track with these guys, and mix elsewhere. heck, people still record to 2 inch tape at times (which by the way sounds very nice). with a console without automation, you could track with it into pro tools, then route your outputs to channells back on the console for monitoring, and mix in protools, you just might not have all the control from your console. are you thinking of purchasing a larger console?

[xstatic]

Often times when a DAW is mixed in with a large format console, the DAW becomes a highly glorified tape machine. Many people will take something like a Pro Tools rig and send each track individually out to a large format console for mixing. This gives you the analog summing, analog pan feel, Analog EQ's, real faders, and a very easy way to integrate a mix recorded on a DAW with analog outboard gear. There are definately advantages and disadvantages to this. What I like about it is that while you are mixing, you can do your automation inside the DAW which is actually much easier than most console automation systems, and that you can still use whatever plugins you want before the signal hits the console, but also maintain smooth hands on control at the console with all the console EQ and outboard stuff you want. Kind of the best of both worlds. There are three major drawbacks that I can see though. First, is the extra D/A conversion. If you have good solid converters, this isn't much of an issue. Second, is the recallability of a mix. Unless you have a console with a good automation system capable of recalling things like gain pots, fader positions, pan pots, aux sends and routing, then opening a mix to make a small change is not so easy. You also have to make good notes of what outboard gear is patched where and make notes concerning all of the knobs and functions of the used outboard gear. This can become tedious for small changes in a mix. The third issue that I see is that you lose some portability between systems. It could be very complicated if you start a mix at one studio, and then move to another. Thats only if you really wanted to keep the progress that you had made at the first studio.

Personally, a large integrated system seems by far the best route for me if time and budget permits. In general, if you are at a studio with a large SSL and a full blown PT HD Accel system, there is probably also an intern there who you can get to make all of your outboard notes, and the SSL Total Recall system should take care of 90% or more of your necessary console notes and settings. My consoel may not be an SSL, but it is a huge, really nice D&R studio console. One of my favorite features is the abundance of beautiful preamps and EQ's (44 mono preamps, and 88 full channels of EQ). I love that I can have 1 fader for tracking and have an excellent EQ on it should I want or need it, and then a seperate fader for listening in the control room with completely seperate EQ should I want it or need it for building headphone mixes. This way I have no latency to worry about and I can EQ things for listening or headphones without commiting the EQ to tape (or hard disc).

[EC_Beast]

Very interesting, XStatic. I currently use a Digi002 rack but have no control surface, and I really would like one to simplify things for me. And soon, I'm hoping for a chance to showcase some of the work I do with myself and another artist and get some finacial aid. Anywho...would most agree the analog mixer increases the warmth of the overall sound and mix when used?

[EC_Beast]

Almost forgot, where is the automation recalled from...Pro Tools, or the console? I'm assuming there are more answered than I can shake a stick at though...but I am prepared hahah.

[xstatic]

Depending on the console that you use, automation can be done in the DAW, on the console, or even a mixture of both. I prefer DAW automation because it's easier to draw in certain things and you don't have to sync to a timecode. Basically, if you are mixing with a hybrid setup like I mentioned above, you can do fader automations in the DAW. For example, you need to boost the snare for each of the choruses in a song. I go into Cubase and automate the output volume of the snare track to reflect the changes that I want. If I do that, then the snare volume will raise where I told it to, but the fader on the console would just stay in the same place. That way I don't have to worry about smpte or any other time code stuff. I could automate the snare track on the console instead though should I want to do it that way. I like to keep a control surface handy for certain types of automation. Sometimes envelope automations just don't feel as natural to me, so with a control surface I can write the volume sweel by pushing a physical fader instead of with mouse clicks. In the end though, the difference isn't that big of a deal and whichever can happen the fastest is usually what happens.

As far as a console mix sounding "warmer" thats a whole different long debate. Personally, I think that mixing analog gives ME a better feel. I like the way my console sums better than software, and I like the depth that seems to happen on an analog pan pot better as well. But, in the end, the differences are really a matter of opinion. What I like better, you might not. It's really a personal decision and commenting on this is not my way of starting this old debate again, just stating my preference and reasons. Having said that, 95% of my mixes are still in the box due to time restrictions, lack of really high end converters, and recallability. Actually, the converters don't factor in much in my decision because I feel like the advantages of the console far outweigh the small loss of conversion. No one will hear the converter loss unless they had the unconverted mix to reference it against, and mixing on the console prompts me to change my mixes enough to negate the comparison anyhow. In the end, the absolute recallability and constintency of mix integrity prompts me to do almost everything in the box

[EC_Beast]

Aahhh...So really, you rarely use the console to mix, just to track? With that in mind, how do you feel about digital mixers then? Such as the Tascams, Digidesign ones, and many others? Again, things that can integrate well into Pro Tools.

[xstatic]

As of right now, yes, I rarely do my mixes on the analog console. I do prefer it however sonicly, but the CPU is just more efficient at this point for me and my workflow. As far as digital consoles go, I really haven't heard one that I like as much as the console I have now. Of course the one I have now is also a $110,000 console, which limits the amount of boards that should compete in that department. It really is a matter of preference.

[EC_Beast]

Ok. So for you personally, your work flow is based on tracking on mixer, then mixing on the console sperately. So how do you go about prepping a session for a mix from the digital channels into analog?