who uses outboard gear here?

[trock]

and does not do "build to mix"

just curious on your work methods, reverb units and other gear, how you use saw this way? how you mix etc?

and how are your results compared to all

ITB?

[TotalSonic]

and does not do "build to mix"

just curious on your work methods, reverb units and other gear, how you use saw this way? how you mix etc?

and how are your results compared to all

ITB?

Mixing with SAW entirely in the box and using "build to mix" - processing the 2buss when needed with analog eq's and compressors and capturing back in a 2nd SAW DAW. List of outboard gear I use is at http://www.totalsonicmastering.com/gear.htm
The results I'm most proud of and willing to compare to any are available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/invert3

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bob L]

Mixing completely virtual with no further use of any hardware except the soundcard and converters.

All verbs are the SAWStudio verb... all processing are mostly native SAWStudio plugs... my results are the best in my 37 year career, in my opinion.

Bob L

[CurtZHP]

Depending on the project, I might do all my mixing ITB, or I'll just use SAW as a playback machine and mix on my DM-24. As far as outboard gear, I've only got a couple preamps. No compressors or 'verbs.

[UpTilDawn]

All ITB for me. Without the budget for really top end gear and my attitude of always striving to keep the hardware to a minimum, I see little reason to bother as long as I get a sound that works.

DanT

[Tree Leopard]

and does not do "build to mix"

just curious on your work methods, reverb units and other gear, how you use saw this way? how you mix etc?

and how are your results compared to all

ITB?

Are you talking about a final mix, via analogue processors > looping back into SAW? Or treating individual tracks? I've done quite a lot of the latter, re-recording through older Eventide, Sony and Ensoniq FX processors simply because I know their sound and there is a texture that I'm after. But this is generally for ambiances which will be set well back in the mix using Wizoo. You have to decide if the quality of the sound feels "just right" despite the added noise. Or you use the noise somehow or mask it with another sound / instrument.

I've noticed there are more MEs here in Australia who are working like Steve is, using hi-end analogue EQs and compressors, simply because digital for them doesn't offer the nuances they're after. Many say they get superior results because they are listening differently and it's a lot more relaxing than "looking at an f-ing screen all day". But you'd need a strong client base to justify the investment. Or a winning streak on the stock market.

Andre

PS: Btw, Steve - congrats on the new CD!

[HapHazzard]

No outside hardware anymore.
Just me and my PC

Hap

[Leadfoot]

i'm an old analog guy and my ears have been weened on that sound all my life. that being said, times change, and i've been doing sound long enough to accept that change whatever it means. analog and digital sound different, no doubt, but it doesn't mean one might be better than the other relative to what you might be used to. your ears can adjust to any mix, as long as it doesn't totally suck, and be happy with it in time. i can tell you, whatever it is that you're looking for, can be achieved with saw, but you might be so over critical of what you're doing, that it might elude you at the moment. if you're basing everything you do compared to many hit records, you might be disappointed because the amount of time money and effort that goes into a hit song when they know it's probably gonna sell one million units, is different than when only 50 people are gonna hear it. and they know exactly what sound they're after and they get it. we use pm5d's live for monitors and foh through nexo boxes, if i didn't know they were digital, i wouldn't be able to tell the difference. it's really all about having a great song, great arrangement, great musicians to play it, and a great engineer. a little luck doesn't hurt either!

tony

sorry trock, i assumed when you said outboard you meant analog vs digital. i've been on a fest gig for six days and haven't had much sleep.. hope i didn't derail things too much.. i'll shut up now

edited for content..

[Perry]

For me it depends on the project. For commercial work (jingles, voice overs, etc) I do it in-the-box... usually using native plug-ins within SAWStudio. And I build the mix directly in SAWStudio.

For music projects I do it differently. I do all of the editing (of course) and automation in SAWStudio and some of the plugins there. But, I route everything through my Soundscape mixer on a track by track basis (sometimes stereo pairs for certain things) and do some of the plugins there as well. There are some that are native to the Soundscape mixer that I like to use. And I treat all of this as if it were an actual hardware mixer.

I can setup aux sends so that I can send to reverbs in the Soundscape mixer from either SAWStudio and/or directly in the Soundscape mixer... or vice versa.

I could automate the Soundscape mixer mixer but generally don't... I find SAWStudio's automation simply superb and so I use it and don't need anything else.

From there I bus down to the 2-mix in the Soundscape Mixer and either route this out to another computer in the room or directly back into SAWStudio. 'Occasionally' I use some outboard hardware... but I'm doing less of that these days.

I use the Soundscape plug-ins 'as if' hardware. Just purchasing the new Algorithmix EACM/2 "Neve" emulation EQ now. Love that thing.. I think I like it more than the UA one even, and it works with no latency in the Soundscape mixer... recording or mixing.

I like the 'color' and textures of some of the analog.. or analog emulation.. EQ's and compressors.. for now I don't think I can get away from that for the types of music that I like to record and mix.

I'm very happy with this setup.

Now... of course you CAN do it all in-the-box... but this is what I do... I like it.

Happy SAWing!

Perry

[Bill Park]

and does not do "build to mix"

just curious on your work methods, reverb units and other gear, how you use saw this way? how you mix etc?

and how are your results compared to all

ITB?

a long time ago I discovered that the damage done by multiple ADDA conversions was worse than any mojo brought the the table by outboard gear. So I make all of that happen on the way in with my choice of mic pre, mic, and possibly compression, and do the rest of the job in the box. Now that I have much better converters, I'm very used to working in the box and I've gotten rid of all of the outboard verbs and such.

For a while I did have a producer who would show up with his Lex 300 with SPDIF and we'd run whatever he wanted to run through that box. (shrug...)

Honestly, I believe that if you put the best signal possible into the DAW (via choice of mic, pre, and placement), and mix on the best possible playback system, it is really not that hard to get the sounds that you want. I've said it here before, I sold off 80 rack spaces of outboard gear, much of it vintage. Don't miss it at all. And all of the hardware that makes me break out in a sweat today are mic pres, compressors, eqs and some other studio gear by Fearn, Forssell, Massenberg, Great River, Cranesong, Maslec, Weiss, etc. No real desire for outboard verbs and such.

Bill