MIX PLUS W/P CONTROL VS EUPHONICS W/ 1/2" TAPE AND 888 24

[shawnosimpson]

Hey Bryan,
I would definately take the 24bit files to the mastering house via Magneto Optical or another 24 bit media. I was just saying that for a reference, you could mix down to the analog, or if your engineer insists on it. It sounds to me like your engineer is open to anything. Maybe you should give him the chance to work on something current as opposed to a Euvomits that was 5 years old the day it went into its first studio. I've worked on pretty much everything Euphonix has and have never been impressed at all. Unless it's free, it's not worth it. Good luck with the project.
--Shawn

[Jules]

I would kiss my ProControl, I wouldn't kiss a Euphonics...too ugly.

The gear kisser,

Jules

[Oli P]

If your mix engineer isn't familiar with mixing on PT, then go for the Euphonix.

You can still use the plug-ins you want, and even do a lot of automation in PT. But He will very likely get pretty frustrated with the delays caused by the plug-ins, if he is not used to work around them.

IMHO the Euphonix is very transparent, and not a desk that adds lots of caracter like an SSL or Neve, so I would base my decision on what the mix engineer is most comfortable working on. Soundwise it is pretty much the same advantages/disadvantages (Clean and clear with a lack of caracter and warmth)

If you decide to mix in PT, I would recommend not to use any of the mastering plug-ins on the master fader. Just bounce direct to 24 bit, or to a 24 bit DAT, and let the mastering guys do the analog processing with their very high-end converters.

I am working on a project now that I will mix on my pro tools for the stereo version, and then mix a 5.1 surround version on a Euphonix cs desk. I plan on using a lot of my original pro tools automation, and mostly use the Euphonix to do the surround panning, and to add the surround reverbs and stuff.

[Danny Caccavo]

As far as a good mix - it depends on which system/engineer you can get the best balances on.

Remember, "up is louder" is really all that matters.

Although many may disagree.

DC

[Steve MacMillan]

I mix on ProTools all the time and I love it. I also have mixed on a Euphonics for years, my mix of Seal's "Don't Cry" might have been the first hit record mixed on one. My take is that a Mix Plus is not going to be enough DSP for the job. I have just enough with five Mix cards and three DSP farms. Unless your style of mixing is just simple eq and compression and you are satisfied with only certain plugins then you will need a lot more cards. Still if your only choice was ProTools there are ways to get it done.

sm

[georgia]

I agree with the gang... I've mixed on SSL, Neve, and a bunch of "lesser?" boards as well as protools... When I get hired to mix outside of my facility. I toss in my room for editing... More and more we end up on protools...

although... I find my fav path is:

track on Neve with a 3348 or Studer ( depending on gig)

transfer to Protools - Edit/ cut past / over dub / muck-about / bugger-off / putz around / finsh up

Rough it on Protools

THEN.. drag the whole thing back to an SSL 9000 and MIX. ( mind you - i'm dragging the entire Protools system into the studio and locking protools to the SSL, taking my already roughed mix and "tweaking it".

Finally I mixdown to DAT 48khz, DAT 44.1Khz 1/2 and Digital to disk. All the masters are available for the producer to "decide" which one "sounds the best" and we're off to mastering....

The end result - still a great song or not: all depends on the ARTIST / PRODUCER / ENGINEER... not so much the equipment.

On small projects its just Protools more often than not.


geo

PS: another side effect to this path is I hear my mixes in at lease 3 different spaces while i'm working on a project. (I also burn a box load of CDR's during a project and spend a lot of time runnning to my car/boombox/home stereo to "check"...

I guess the more you learn the dumber you feel... After 15+ years I still get the awful feeling that i'm going to miss sometging or i'm screwing up somewhere....

[This message has been edited by georgia (edited February 08, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by georgia (edited February 08, 2000).]

[Madjef]

Just recently mixed an album that was recorded and mixed within pro tools with Pro Control. This Album was nominated for a very prestigous award. I felt the whole time that I should be doint this on an SSL or Harrison, etc. but the end result was pretty much the same. My most recent project involved an artist that wanted an SSL on the mix so I had to go that route. I appreciated the phatness of the Studer tape machine we dumped to and the punch of the SSL
but I just can't help but wonder if it was really necessary.

[Jonny Atack]

Last year I mixed a number of projects entirely within PT -- before going back to a hybrid approach similar to what Georgia describes using PT and then mixing on an analog desk.

Case in point: I just mixed a few alternative rock tracks here in Paris for an band in North Hollywood. The source media was 16-bit ProTools 4.3.1 song files. The PT tracks were output via 3 Apogee AD8000s (one in-house, two rented) to a DDA desk. Levels were automated in PT. EQ/comps/FX were done both with PT plugins and with outboard gear.

After the last track was mixed, I took a few hours to compare that mix with the all-in-PT approach. I recorded the outboard FX desk busses back into PT (limiters/comps, verbs/plates, DDLs, chorusing/pitch mods), then imitated the desk/outboard EQs using plugins, then routed all out the 1-2 bus to bounce to disk.

The hard part was to get the plugin EQs (Waves & McDSP) to sound like the desk and outboard EQs...a couple dBs of cut/gain on the latter requires a lot more on the plugins. I find that plugin EQ works best when cutting and filtering. For big 'n fat EQ the outboard and desk works best.

If you do mix from PT to an analog desk: The PT tracks sent to the desk sound better when the PT fader is at unity gain and levels are set with the analog desk...rather than setting levels within PT and leaving the analog faders at zero. This unfortunately runs contrary to what is more convenient: setting the levels in advance with PT automation.

In the end, the all-in PT mix sounded rounder and a bit fuller in the low-mids. The extreme hi and lo frequencies sounded a bit more natural. It sounded nicer.

The hybrid mix had more attitude and barked and kicked butt a lot more. It rocked. It sounded dirtier and meaner. You can guess which mix the band and label preferred.


[This message has been edited by Jonny Atack (edited February 09, 2000).]

[Jules]

For 'all PT sessions" anyone advise printing to 2' on mixdown day if possible?
I'm set up for all in PT stuff w Procontrol (16 faders) I will spend the next few months getting my chops together with it...Time will tell. For the price of ProControl I could have bought a huge secondhand automated crappy desk that breaks down all the time........
On analog I am / was a day and a half for one song mixdown type of guy.....
I'm digging the 20 second load up time at the moment between songs...!!!!

Jules

[Marc Edwards]

I doubt I'm at the same level as you guys, but I have found that plugins seem to be fine for some tasks, and not for others - as this is probably the most important issue for the PT vs analogue argument (I doubt if you could hear much difference for a 'level only' mix).

EQ and Compression : I'd go for good outboard every time - it seems to get the same results you have to push plugins much further, and not many plugs add good colour.

Delay/Chorus/Flange : Plugs are fine for this, and multiple instances of the same plug really helps (you can fine tune delays for everything!)

Reverb : Do you think anything sounds as good as outboard Lexi gear?

Distortion : I haven't heard AmpFarm yet, but I love my SansAmpPSA1 :^)

Any comments?

Cheers, Marc.