Mixing in the Analog World

[fragments]

Curious if anyone else is mixing their tunes on an analog board. If so, what do you think of it compared to digital? ...beyond the obvious that cost to flexibility ratio better on the digital end of things.

Lately I've been arranging everything in Maschine then outputting the signal to channels on my Soundcraft EPM 8. I do a bit of filtering/EQ in Maschine, but not tons. I find that mixes fall together much easier in the analog realm, even inside the extreme limitations of my budget mixer. I don't know if it's because there are no visuals and no numbers or if there really is some kind of magic difference between 1s and 0s and analog (I don't really want to start that whole debate).

I'm working with only a LF, HF and sweepable MF from 150hz-12Khz (I think, would have to double check) Inserts and preamps on every channel, two aux sends and two stereo channels I'm using for returns.

Thoughts? Experiences? Digital users do you feel like you get caught up in all the possibilities available to you (for mixing purposes) inside your DAW?

[nameless133]

In analog mixers, the EQ won't mess up the phase, you can use on channels too, unlike digital EQ's.

[fragments]

In analog mixers, the EQ won't mess up the phase, you can use on channels too, unlike digital EQ's.

Really? Could you explain more about this? I don't know a lot the science-y/technical side of things myself. Why do digital EQs mess with the phase, why don't analog EQs do this?

Might explain some of why things seem easier...maybe ;p

[Triphosphate]

In analog mixers, the EQ won't mess up the phase, you can use on channels too, unlike digital EQ's.

Really? Could you explain more about this? I don't know a lot the science-y/technical side of things myself. Why do digital EQs mess with the phase, why don't analog EQs do this?

Might explain some of why things seem easier...maybe ;p

I don't want to seem contrary, but I don't think this is entirely accurate. Prepare for quotes with referenced reading material!

Filters:
Regarding ripple-

Let's compare the two filters blow-by-blow. As shown in (a) and (b), the analog filter has a 6% ripple in the passband, while the digital filter is perfectly flat (within 0.02%).

Frequency Response-

Next, look at the frequency response on a log scale, as shown in (c) and (d). Again, the digital filter is clearly the victor in both roll-off and stopband attenuation. Even if the analog performance is improved by adding additional stages, it still can't compare to the digital filter. For instance, imagine that you need to improve these two parameters by a factor of 100. This can be done with simple modifications to the windowed-sinc, but is virtually impossible for the analog circuit. Score two more for the digital filter.

Phase-

The step response of the two filters is shown in (e) and (f). The digital filter's step response is symmetrical between the lower and upper portions of the step, i.e., it has a linear phase. The analog filter's step response is not symmetrical, i.e., it has a nonlinear phase. One more point for the digital filter. Lastly, the analog filter overshoots about 20% on one side of the step. The digital filter overshoots about 10%, but on both sides of the step. Since both are bad, no points are awarded.

Reasons for choosing analog over digital-

In spite of this beating, there are still many applications where analog filters should, or must, be used. This is not related to the actual performance of the filter (i.e., what goes in and what comes out), but to the general advantages that analog circuits have over digital techniques. The first advantage is speed: digital is slow; analog is fast. For example, a personal computer can only filter data at about 10,000 samples per second, using FFT convolution. Even simple op amps can operate at 100 kHz to 1 MHz, 10 to 100 times as fast as the digital system!

The second inherent advantage of analog over digital is dynamic range. This comes in two flavors. Amplitude dynamic range is the ratio between the largest signal that can be passed through a system, and the inherent noise of the system. For instance, a 12 bit ADC has a saturation level of 4095, and an rms quantization noise of 0.29 digital numbers, for a dynamic range of about 14000. In comparison, a standard op amp has a saturation voltage of about 20 volts and an internal noise of about 2 microvolts, for a dynamic range of about ten million. Just as before, a simple op amp devastates the digital system.

Reference: http://www.dspguide.com/ch21/1.htm

EQ's

Analog Distortion: Both analog and digital filters introduce distortion. However, the types of distortion introduced by the two types of filters can be very different. Analog electronics are usually slightly non-linear, which creates harmonic distortion. In small amounts, harmonic distortion is usually considered benign or even pleasant, since the frequencies it creates are musically related to the desired frequencies passing through the filter...

Phase: For the most part, both analog and digital filters distort the phase of signals in the same way. For more information on this topic, read why no filter is perfect.

Reference: http://www.xowave.com/doc/effect/eq/ana ... ital.shtml

Technically, time domain issues are generally caused by problems with "non-linear phase shift." Without going into mathematical detail, phase shift is an artifact of virtually all EQ (both analog and digital), and can be a serious problem in some contexts. But because phase shift is so common and so difficult to avoid, audio engineers tend to regard it as a necessary evil. Digital filters can be designed to avoid phase shift, but such filters tend to be hundreds or even thousands of times more computationally intensive. Unless carefully designed, these "linear phase" filters can have problems of their own, including pre-echoes, "jumpy" frequency response, extreme latency, and parameters that are impossible to automate.

Reference: http://www.xowave.com/doc/effect/eq/distortion.shtml

Loves me some google.

[fragments]

Big ups man. Interesting reads for sure. I'll be doing some googling of my own about this.

[SunkLo]

Yeah that phase comment was completely wrong. EQs work by shifting phase, no way around it. Digital actually offers a few more options regarding phase so you can fine tune per scenario. Some deluxe digital EQs are incorporating analog curves instead of the standard digital bells. Equilibrium comes to mind, Waves H-EQ offers something similar I believe.

[fragments]

Yeah that phase comment was completely wrong. EQs work by shifting phase, no way around it. Digital actually offers a few more options regarding phase so you can fine tune per scenario. Some deluxe digital EQs are incorporating analog curves instead of the standard digital bells. Equilibrium comes to mind, Waves H-EQ offers something similar I believe.

Cool. Thanks for that tid bit. Like I said, I'm not big on the science stuff, I just use my ears ;p But I have Waves H-EQ.


This makes me even more perplexed about why I like mixing on an analog mixer better, now that I'm finding out there is a potential to cause even more of a phasing issue using an analog EQ than a digital EQ.

[SunkLo]

Well not so much more phasing, regular digital and analog EQs are the same. Linear phase EQs still have problems. Their pre-ring is often more audible than the post-ring of regular FIR EQs. The benefit of digital is that you have a few options so you can choose the lesser of evils depending on the situation.

[fragments]

Well not so much more phasing, regular digital and analog EQs are the same. Linear phase EQs still have problems. Their pre-ring is often more audible than the post-ring of regular FIR EQs. The benefit of digital is that you have a few options so you can choose the lesser of evils depending on the situation.

I really, really need to look more into how EQs work, lol. This gives me a place to start.

[SunkLo]

Have a suicide hotline number nearby. The math involved in most DSP robs me of any appreciation for human life.

[AxeD]

I've mixed one of my own projects on 6000 E series, it don't get more analogue than that..
All on-board, except for a pcm verb. Offers a great approach to mixing, but it's not like it sounds that much better suddenly.

[fragments]

Have a suicide hotline number nearby. The math involved in most DSP robs me of any appreciation for human life.

Haha. Hate to sound like a quitter, but maybe not then. I can't even balance my check book!

I've mixed one of my own projects on 6000 E series, it don't get more analogue than that..
All on-board, except for a pcm verb. Offers a great approach to mixing, but it's not like it sounds that much better suddenly.

What did you think of doing it that way versus digital? Workflow thoughts? What did you like about it? I agree it doesn't sound better suddenly because it's analog, but I feel like it somehow works out better for me. I'm curious to why that might be. I've been fooling around with mixing on small mixing boards in my home studio off and on for years, but recently found a real groove doing things that way.

[SunkLo]

You can still hit a happy medium where you're aware of enough of the mechanics to make choices on what type of EQ to employ. You might be able to find a video on youtube about the different types of phase modes and how they sound.

[fragments]

You can still hit a happy medium where you're aware of enough of the mechanics to make choices on what type of EQ to employ. You might be able to find a video on youtube about the different types of phase modes and how they sound.

Oh I'm sure, hehe. I'll likely look into it

[knobgoblin]

I just recently combined setups with another engineer. He brought with him a SSL xdesk and two lunch boxes of API500 series EQ's and compressors, so we have 16 channels of summing, 14 channels of EQ and dynamics processing and a Roland re-501 for delay/reverb. I've only had the opportunity to mix acoustic music on it thus far, but plan on mixing all my tunes thru it when my next album is finished

[fragments]

I just recently combined setups with another engineer. He brought with him a SSL xdesk and two lunch boxes of API500 series EQ's and compressors, so we have 16 channels of summing, 14 channels of EQ and dynamics processing and a Roland re-501 for delay/reverb. I've only had the opportunity to mix acoustic music on it thus far, but plan on mixing all my tunes thru it when my next album is finished

If it's not a bother, report back here or in a PM...I'd be really interested in knowing how you feel about mixing this way. Defo looking into lunchbox in the near future. I've owned digital and analog synths. While there differences, I feel like the place to invest in hardware is mixing/dynamics/EQ.


(totes jelly of that set up!)

[knobgoblin]

Yeah, quality outboard can make digital synths feel a lot warmer/better.

In general tho, mixing in the analog domain has a lot of advantages. The mixes we are working on right now are coming together a lot quicker than our old ITB setup, and have a subjectively nicer quality to them. The drawback of recall ability tho is pretty serious. It forces you to make decisions and stick with them before you can move on to the next mix. The other problem we've had with this is that the vocal automation(or any level automation really) is happening before the dynamic processing, so it's driving the compressor differently than if the automation were AFL, but you learn to work with it. Headroom for days on the SSL, which is nice, and how hard you push the masterbuss is a subtle tone shaper.

[AxeD]

Yeah, quality outboard can make digital synths feel a lot warmer/better.

In general tho, mixing in the analog domain has a lot of advantages. The mixes we are working on right now are coming together a lot quicker than our old ITB setup, and have a subjectively nicer quality to them. The drawback of recall ability tho is pretty serious. It forces you to make decisions and stick with them before you can move on to the next mix. The other problem we've had with this is that the vocal automation(or any level automation really) is happening before the dynamic processing, so it's driving the compressor differently than if the automation were AFL, but you learn to work with it. Headroom for days on the SSL, which is nice, and how hard you push the masterbuss is a subtle tone shaper.

Gotta love that thing. Actually made some pictures of my EQs last time for if I want to go back to the mix

[paradigm_x]

Analogue desks can be driven nicely, and hence can distort, or as a minimum, have some free compression. I use hardly any compression now, just increase the gains a bit.



My desk was a complete bargain and is just lovely.

[fragments]

Analogue desks can be driven nicely, and hence can distort, or as a minimum, have some free compression. I use hardly any compression now, just increase the gains a bit.



My desk was a complete bargain and is just lovely.

I absolutely love being able to drive a channel...most of the time...sounds fabulous. I've got a a couple compressors I use OTB, but mostly just to sharpen up drum sounds. My mixer adds a nice subtle glue to the channels, don't feel I like need to slather compression all of the mix to make it feel cohesive.

What kind of desk are you running paradigm?