As noted in the description, this is not his studio. He was visiting just for the video shoot since we were doing a different shoot there later in the day.
This is the point that always sticks in my mind. These huge famous mixing engineers are getting files that have been recorded through high end analogue gear by the best ears in the business, so they don’t necessarily need to use any analogue gear when mixing. So ITB or OTB simply becomes a choice of convenience, habit and flavour. But that argument can’t really hold for most of the rest of us who often receive digitally recorded files which have been poorly recorded by musicians or amateur producers. Therefore, We need to add that extra OTB character spice that only analogue gear can impart in full when mixing. Which is a salient point for those of us who are also recording artists - should we invest in analogue gear if we aren’t recording in high end recording studios? The answer, I believe, is a resounding yes, where financially permissible, of course.
1000x yes. Well articulated, sir. 25 year veteran. Label work. TV work. Home studio always. What Nathan has described so well here is absolutely key to understanding fidelity in terms of “hardware vs digital”. More accurately it’s “hardware>digital” vs “digital>digital”. The difference ain’t subtle.
@@hauntedbytheliving1175 It makes a difference to studio heads that sit in front of speakers all day and ear fuck mixes to death. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the general public, and has zero to do with wether a song is succesful or not. The 5000 dollar compressor is for YOU, not for music lovers/listeners. Obviously MB is realizing that finally.
Another massive point is that analog has higher headroom when tracking. I haven’t met a single person that intentionally clips a digital signal like I’ve seen with outboard gear either. In a lot of ways these units can be used as instruments themselves for creative application. Plug-ins still have a long way to go when in comes to harmonic distortion during late stage phases of saturation. SSL isn’t consistently selling out of the Fusion for 3k a unit because the vst is just as good. Additionally I do not know a single mastering studio in the professional realm not using analog gear unless a client crushed all the headroom in the mixing phase. To be clear, digital is awesome and has its own strengths and advantages in a lot of ways. That’s why I believe hybrid dope, get the best of both worlds. Recording is cheaper then it has ever been, even down to power consumption. Only in this business is where I see people complain about spending money and investing in themselves. I don’t think spending around 25k for a studio computer, acoustic treatment, and some good tracking/mixing rack units that you can write off in taxes is that much. Plus the stuff isn’t hard to move, people have built decent spaces in their own house. Try being someone with a passion in culinary arts that wants to run a restaurant. One commercial freezer costs that entire recording set up. Note I’m saying just a freezer and not all the other things you would need to cook and serve clients. Or the monthly energy cost and rent. Those are actual financial risks that I have nothing but respect for the balls it takes to start. I don’t understand artists refusal to spend any money to invest in themselves. Or rather their business. I will always be perplexed by it. Anyways, anyone that reads this I hope your day is going well. Work hard and I know you can get to where you want to be.
@@veracityhiphop you make a lot of great points about analogue vs digital. 👏🏽 The point about 25k etc though. I mean, it’s a great point, but let’s be real, most artists don’t actually have that kind of money, nor do they have the kind of financial clout to even get loans for that amount, unless you come from a privileged background. Therefore they need to build their arts business up to be able to generate enough sustainable income to afford such an expense, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that artists aren’t wanting to invest their money into these things, they just don’t necessarily have the means (yet). And sinking 25k into studio gear if your a touring artist would be fatuous at best. That money should be put into marketing in order to generate a solid enough brand that reaches their target audience and generates the income we’re speaking about. And what kind of artists are we speaking of? Producers? Or musicians? Or both? Either way, buying gear isn’t necessarily the smartest investment when in the nascent phases of music business or if finances aren’t flush. For loans, banks have more trust in industries like food/ restaurant as they view that as a vital product and service so it’s easier to get loans for such things compared with music, which sadly is still perceived as not vital, despite music and the arts being the first thing people turn to for solace in times of struggle and hardship. Anyway, still very good points with perspective and compassion added. 🙏🏽
I have a fair amount of analog gear and I can easily say that learning how to mix on that gear has made it to where I can recreate that about 95% of that sound in the box.
As an advocate for ITB mixing for the longest, I love when hardware guys can finally say, they don't need that hardware anymore. One could argue that ones experience with hardware makes that conversation easier...to which I agree, but also reinforces the idea that the tools don't make the engineer. Personally for new engineers, I think it's a trap to think you need hardware to gain the same experience...rather, I think you don't need the same experience. What you need is context based on what you have, what you're listening to, and matching/knowing said tool to get to the desired result. Most new mixers will also follow into the shiny plugin trap in getting everything under the sun and not really knowing how to use one (raising my hand). The key, keep it simple, learn your tools, trim the fat, iterate, repeat. Happy mixing!
they have the experience to do that and skills that is the main thing to archive a good sound......but on this story of this top mix engineer there's somenthing that no one consider.....they work on stems that are been tracked and recorded whit the most expensive hardware out there in most of case ......what i mean that the material where they work on are already sounding good and have that kind of analog sound that everyone talk about.....in fact they talk about mixing and no tracking.......give the idea that you can make a huge perfect sounding mix just recording for example a mic straight in your audio interface and after mix it , this is not true at all.
This legend's vision and philosophy percolated into a generation of ITB mixers a decade before he made the transition. He's far more influential than he realizes.
I'm not surprised that he was able to make the transition to ITB mixing. A great engineer will always be able to get most out of the tools. But it is the vast experience as a mixing engineer having worked with all the hardware originals for decades that makes the transition relatively easy. My personal experience was that my mixes became so much better when I got the chance to work on proper analog desks on a regular basis. I highly doubt that I would have developed the same skills just by working in the box, so I think working with hardware is still indispensable for aspiring engineers. Although I can pretty much achieve the same results ITB by now I still prefer working with hardware. It is limiting in a very productive way - not having the possibility to use 10 Fairchilds in a mix is not necessarily bad. And for me personally working with hardware also keeps my ADHD busy, so it is a lot easier for me to keep focused.
We always get used to doing things easier, faster, recallable. But every single time I take it out of the box, man does it sound much better. Even through faders at zero - BIG difference that anyone can hear. People say the ITB mixes sound "good", but the same mix done through hardware sounds amazing. Just no recall.
Thanks for this! With 64-bit addressing, I started to realize an entirely new world of mixing... Ha! still pinching myself over how great the desktop truly is today :)
@@julioibarra7156 no, touch is far, far superior to real faders. you need to use the right software and the right daw with the right scripts and protocols. first, no midi, thats just dogshit to say the least, only good for realtime tasks like playing notes. OSC is where its at. a touch fader can be smart, different resolution with more fingers used, it can snap, memorize, move, adapt to size etc. you do not need a huge desk to fit everything, a downside of all huge desks, no matter how good your room is , moving a lost is always bad. a touch fader will always feel the same, it will never break, you can use 10 faders simultaneously no problem on an ipad which is by far the best touch device out there. bitwig or reaper can be used with mossgrabers scripts which are state of the art, together with openestagecontrol, the very pinnacle of touch control, both are free.
The major labels don’t invest too much nowadays to keep all that money sitting in these racks but we still need all these beautiful analog eqs, mic pres, compressors and nice recording spaces like avatar to send to the top tiers engineers these pristine well recorded tracks so they can finish it up in the box. You can’t record a 50 piece orchestra in the box without analog outboard gear .
Good points! Michael's discussion here is focused on mixing since that's his primary role, but great studios with quality outboard gear (when appropriate) are immensely helpful in tracking. We're sure he'd agree that well-recorded tracks make mixing and mastering easier!
Fascinating. I do believe that mixing ITB is totally possible however I think that mixing ITB takes longer. Turning knobs and using analog gear gets you to the final mix faster. Why not just stay hybrid and have the best of both. Why limit the tools in the toolbox
because they work on stems tracked and recorded already with piece of hardwaree that we can just dream only.....most of the job has made in tracking ....most of people don't get this point.
Everything he mentioned is true, however, in the video he still has a lot of analog stuff around him! Just for mixing, you can do great on the box. However, for tracking I got better results using a mix of analog hardware and plugins. For instance, I got a load of virtual instruments that I use in my productions that sound great in solo but not as good in the mix, by running them with some hardware inserts they get more character and some how a sound of a real analog instrument punch (trumpets, trombones, drums, percussion, bass and piano) that seats better on the mix.
I believe his projects are at 96k. Which makes a difference ITB. Ive been using metaplugin to oversample alot of PA plugs and jeez they are night and day when OSing
@@WhoIsAlexElliott DDMF MetaPlugin is a plugin wrapper that you can load up to 8 plugins into and oversample the whole chain or create a multiband string. For instance I made a multiband alpha compressor at 4XOS. (4 instances divided with a crossover provided with meta)
I wonderabout the love for hardware vs what the actual sound you get from it. I'd like to take a bunch of engineers and mixers and do some a/b/c recordings done with neve, API, SSL and a $199 Focusrite and see how many guess right. I do love ITB mixing though. Saves so much $ and sounds just as good to general listening audiences. Plus a simple click saveand that recall of a project can't be beat.
People will champion whatever they do, even if it's a compromise in sound. These guys are at a time in their careers that they prefer to have it easy and not do any more recalls on outboard gear. An in the box mix doesn't sound the same as something that has been summed through a console, full stop.You gotta choose, good sound or convenience.
@@kwameeyiah Yes I know Andrew has started mixing in the box years ago. I don't have anything against mixing in the box, I sometimes do it because of I have too. I too choose convenience, with certain types of clients. 🙏🏻
@@CraigScottFrost You maybe right, that people might not be able to tell the difference, but I know from personal experience that when you compare an in the box mix to a mix that has been summed through a console or a summing box, the ITB mix always sounds flat, on the other hand the summed mix sounds more 3D. 🙏🏻. Thanks for commenting on my post. Good to have a real open discussion about this.
@@StreetsOfVancouverChannel You are entitled to your opinion. I did watch the whole thing and watched all or most VDO's on MB, including the ones on Mix with the masters which I have been subscribed to for years. I have almost 15years of experience in running a home recording studio, music production, tracking, mixing and mastering (on some projects I have to master, because of limited budget). 🙏🏻🙏🏻
He was involved in the sound design of the SSL 9000 from plugin alliance. And he said in another interview that was the last thing he really needed to leave the hardware behind.
If you want a high fidelity sound in the box, you need to run projects at really high sample rates and / or use oversampling. And selection of quality plugins of course, like the Tokyo Dawn range.
@@IanJamesBeats It's not very obvious and depends on how much non-linear processing (eg saturation, analog emulation) you use in your mixing. But it can be the difference between a pro and an amateur sounding mix.
Very true. I discovered this when Reaper updated to allow oversampling of any plugin. I used to shy away from waves products because most didn't have internal oversampling and I didn't have the CPU to run projects at 96k. But now I've rediscovered how nice they sound and useful when oversampled. My mixes are finally getting that professional sheen they were missing.
Someday almost everything will be in the box. Plugins will replace most hardware. Only computers, interfaces and mics will remain. And a few stubborn souls.
Plugins are getting intergrated with analog gear. I see what you’re saying in a veeeery long future. Not anytime soon. This guy is well known, he can do what he wants
@@MannyXO Yes it would still take a long time. I've seen Scheps first championing ITB, but then I see Brauer with this statement. I mean hardware is great if you can afford it, but vintage gear will be more expensive to maintain in the future as parts run out. New repro hardware are great but still expensive. But when plugins really get better, in fact I'm seeing amazing side by side comparisons with hardware today that tell me, thats good enough for me, I'm not gonna drool over hardware and I will take that 30 dollar plugin instead. I still wish I had hardware. But when the Pros start quiting on their hardware, recalling settings and multiple instances are more than enough reasons to go ITB , then more and more recordists will do the same. For now we can still drool over hardware. Someday that may change. People want it quick and easy. If it sounds great or good enough. Cheers
@@swangonzalez4797 I have a hybrid setup with a few high end hardware units ( some plugin recallable) and a lot of good plugins and I don’t think people who own hardware necessarily drool over the fact that they have the unit just for the sake (like me) but how easily you can get to the sound you’re looking for and the crazy depth, plus it’s fun to work on and indispensable for tracking. I get your point and I loooooove plugins ad much as I love gear. My plugins do specific things (soothe, gullfoss, trackspacer, spctre, those innovative plugins per say), and even though hardware has its limitations just as Plugins do, they’re 2 different worlds. ITB is here to stay as much as OTB with plugin integration. Best of both worlds. Not to mention Dolby Atmos. That’s where it’s heading. I say this cause as long as bands exist (instrumentalists) there will always be a market because engineers as myself don’t track with plugins LIVE or in the STUDIO for the most part. That’s another big reason. These guys are great and I respect them but they can be very misleading.
We don't pay him (or any of our artists), if that's what you're referring to. That's not part of our endorsement model, since we only want genuine and enthusiastic recommendations from our artists.
Whatever happened to the BS a few years ago that analogue sounds better. This was the old school argument for YEARS about mixing and producing music which was a total myth. Circumstances and technology dragged this ancient liars out of the tar pits of tape and "I need an SSL to sound good" towards mixing in the box which ultimately is the best and most flexible way to do things. Why has it taken so long and why do people still cling to the old ways? Maybe I should start mixing on Edison wax cylinders? The argument years ago was, if Mozart, or Bach had access to a DAW and orchestral plugins, would they have still used a quill pen and paper. OF COURSE THEY WOULD HAVE USED A COMPUTER rather than paper.
![Mixing Masterclass with Michael Brauer [MixCon 2020]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PS7f_Jsln04/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how this interview is in front of a beautiful console. ;)
Yup! I found it a little ironic. However, since he probably owns it, why not keep it? I have to admit I'd love to have one just like it!
Its for the "studio" aesthetic, that way he can overcharge his clients😂
As noted in the description, this is not his studio. He was visiting just for the video shoot since we were doing a different shoot there later in the day.
We track great live tracks at EastSide.
I was thinking just the same!! “Yes, 99% ITB”... and there he is with the Neve 😂
This is the point that always sticks in my mind. These huge famous mixing engineers are getting files that have been recorded through high end analogue gear by the best ears in the business, so they don’t necessarily need to use any analogue gear when mixing.
So ITB or OTB simply becomes a choice of convenience, habit and flavour.
But that argument can’t really hold for most of the rest of us who often receive digitally recorded files which have been poorly recorded by musicians or amateur producers.
Therefore, We need to add that extra OTB character spice that only analogue gear can impart in full when mixing.
Which is a salient point for those of us who are also recording artists - should we invest in analogue gear if we aren’t recording in high end recording studios?
The answer, I believe, is a resounding yes, where financially permissible, of course.
1000x yes. Well articulated, sir.
25 year veteran. Label work. TV work. Home studio always.
What Nathan has described so well here is absolutely key to understanding fidelity in terms of “hardware vs digital”.
More accurately it’s “hardware>digital” vs “digital>digital”.
The difference ain’t subtle.
@@hauntedbytheliving1175 It makes a difference to studio heads that sit in front of speakers all day and ear fuck mixes to death. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the general public, and has zero to do with wether a song is succesful or not. The 5000 dollar compressor is for YOU, not for music lovers/listeners. Obviously MB is realizing that finally.
Another massive point is that analog has higher headroom when tracking. I haven’t met a single person that intentionally clips a digital signal like I’ve seen with outboard gear either. In a lot of ways these units can be used as instruments themselves for creative application. Plug-ins still have a long way to go when in comes to harmonic distortion during late stage phases of saturation. SSL isn’t consistently selling out of the Fusion for 3k a unit because the vst is just as good. Additionally I do not know a single mastering studio in the professional realm not using analog gear unless a client crushed all the headroom in the mixing phase.
To be clear, digital is awesome and has its own strengths and advantages in a lot of ways. That’s why I believe hybrid dope, get the best of both worlds. Recording is cheaper then it has ever been, even down to power consumption. Only in this business is where I see people complain about spending money and investing in themselves.
I don’t think spending around 25k for a studio computer, acoustic treatment, and some good tracking/mixing rack units that you can write off in taxes is that much. Plus the stuff isn’t hard to move, people have built decent spaces in their own house. Try being someone with a passion in culinary arts that wants to run a restaurant. One commercial freezer costs that entire recording set up. Note I’m saying just a freezer and not all the other things you would need to cook and serve clients. Or the monthly energy cost and rent. Those are actual financial risks that I have nothing but respect for the balls it takes to start.
I don’t understand artists refusal to spend any money to invest in themselves. Or rather their business. I will always be perplexed by it. Anyways, anyone that reads this I hope your day is going well. Work hard and I know you can get to where you want to be.
@@veracityhiphop you make a lot of great points about analogue vs digital. 👏🏽
The point about 25k etc though. I mean, it’s a great point, but let’s be real, most artists don’t actually have that kind of money, nor do they have the kind of financial clout to even get loans for that amount, unless you come from a privileged background.
Therefore they need to build their arts business up to be able to generate enough sustainable income to afford such an expense, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that artists aren’t wanting to invest their money into these things, they just don’t necessarily have the means (yet).
And sinking 25k into studio gear if your a touring artist would be fatuous at best. That money should be put into marketing in order to generate a solid enough brand that reaches their target audience and generates the income we’re speaking about.
And what kind of artists are we speaking of? Producers? Or musicians? Or both?
Either way, buying gear isn’t necessarily the smartest investment when in the nascent phases of music business or if finances aren’t flush.
For loans, banks have more trust in industries like food/ restaurant as they view that as a vital product and service so it’s easier to get loans for such things compared with music, which sadly is still perceived as not vital, despite music and the arts being the first thing people turn to for solace in times of struggle and hardship.
Anyway, still very good points with perspective and compassion added. 🙏🏽
@@Nathankaye funny how all the analog gear just keeps getting more expensive when all we hear is how nobody is using it. an observation not a point
The computer is the biggest revolution to happen in sound. Ever. And it's only getting better everyday
Actually, magnetism was.
Computers are great for multi track recording though. 2” tape will run you $380 per reel.
No doubt
millenial
Boomer
I have a fair amount of analog gear and I can easily say that learning how to mix on that gear has made it to where I can recreate that about 95% of that sound in the box.
As an advocate for ITB mixing for the longest, I love when hardware guys can finally say, they don't need that hardware anymore.
One could argue that ones experience with hardware makes that conversation easier...to which I agree, but also reinforces the idea that the tools don't make the engineer.
Personally for new engineers, I think it's a trap to think you need hardware to gain the same experience...rather, I think you don't need the same experience. What you need is context based on what you have, what you're listening to, and matching/knowing said tool to get to the desired result.
Most new mixers will also follow into the shiny plugin trap in getting everything under the sun and not really knowing how to use one (raising my hand).
The key, keep it simple, learn your tools, trim the fat, iterate, repeat.
Happy mixing!
they have the experience to do that and skills that is the main thing to archive a good sound......but on this story of this top mix engineer there's somenthing that no one consider.....they work on stems that are been tracked and recorded whit the most expensive hardware out there in most of case ......what i mean that the material where they work on are already sounding good and have that kind of analog sound that everyone talk about.....in fact they talk about mixing and no tracking.......give the idea that you can make a huge perfect sounding mix just recording for example a mic straight in your audio interface and after mix it , this is not true at all.
This legend's vision and philosophy percolated into a generation of ITB mixers a decade before he made the transition. He's far more influential than he realizes.
I'm not surprised that he was able to make the transition to ITB mixing. A great engineer will always be able to get most out of the tools. But it is the vast experience as a mixing engineer having worked with all the hardware originals for decades that makes the transition relatively easy.
My personal experience was that my mixes became so much better when I got the chance to work on proper analog desks on a regular basis. I highly doubt that I would have developed the same skills just by working in the box, so I think working with hardware is still indispensable for aspiring engineers.
Although I can pretty much achieve the same results ITB by now I still prefer working with hardware. It is limiting in a very productive way - not having the possibility to use 10 Fairchilds in a mix is not necessarily bad. And for me personally working with hardware also keeps my ADHD busy, so it is a lot easier for me to keep focused.
Recall is a huge bonus to itb. and Like Andy Sheps, I work on a whole album at once
Thanks bro you have help me get to where I am so far
We always get used to doing things easier, faster, recallable. But every single time I take it out of the box, man does it sound much better. Even through faders at zero - BIG difference that anyone can hear. People say the ITB mixes sound "good", but the same mix done through hardware sounds amazing. Just no recall.
I couldn't mix half as well without my Audeze's!! Plus, they make it possible to hear every detail accurately, ANYWHERE I am ... love them so much!
Which model? I’ve had LCDX on my list
@@HollerAtcherBoi that's what I got!
@@DimitriFantini Did u use any correction for the LCDx?
@@bluematrix5001 I use the Audeze Reveal plugin in my DAW, it makes them even better
@@DimitriFantini the free versión or the one with the studio capture
Thanks for this! With 64-bit addressing, I started
to realize an entirely new world of mixing... Ha! still
pinching myself over how great the desktop truly is today :)
Loved the acoustic guitars on the Coldplay record Parachutes. Nothing like it. Thanks to Mr Brauer.
Did he also mix Milo Xyloto? In "Paradise" the last quarter of that track sounds like a train wrecked through the studio...
I totally get what he means about mixing with faders. There's a finger/ear coordination, like an instrument you develop and a mouse just won't do.
I use a touch screen and it's not even close. Real faders/pan knobs desperately needed
@@julioibarra7156 no, touch is far, far superior to real faders.
you need to use the right software and the right daw with the right scripts and protocols.
first, no midi, thats just dogshit to say the least, only good for realtime tasks like playing notes.
OSC is where its at.
a touch fader can be smart, different resolution with more fingers used, it can snap, memorize, move, adapt to size etc. you do not need a huge desk to fit everything, a downside of all huge desks, no matter how good your room is , moving a lost is always bad.
a touch fader will always feel the same, it will never break, you can use 10 faders simultaneously no problem on an ipad which is by far the best touch device out there.
bitwig or reaper can be used with mossgrabers scripts which are state of the art, together with openestagecontrol, the very pinnacle of touch control, both are free.
What we need for working in the box are better control surfaces. SSL has good looking channel strip controller for hands on adjusting.
Welcome to the 21st Century Michael!
9:31 he is telling about a huge S6, what does he mean?
The Avid S6 mixer/controller for Protools.
I’m hybrid still……for now but I can see me only tracking with hardware but soon mixing in the box solely
The major labels don’t invest too much nowadays to keep all that money sitting in these racks but we still need all these beautiful analog eqs, mic pres, compressors and nice recording spaces like avatar to send to the top tiers engineers these pristine well recorded tracks so they can finish it up in the box. You can’t record a 50 piece orchestra in the box without analog outboard gear .
Good points! Michael's discussion here is focused on mixing since that's his primary role, but great studios with quality outboard gear (when appropriate) are immensely helpful in tracking. We're sure he'd agree that well-recorded tracks make mixing and mastering easier!
have you tried the ssl channel strip plugin from SSl themselves ?
Ok I’m convinced … I’m selling all my gear and buying a sports car. Then it’s ITB from there on out
Just so humble…
Heard him say the abcd buses didnt sound musical with plugins in a mix with the masters type course
Fascinating. I do believe that mixing ITB is totally possible however I think that mixing ITB takes longer. Turning knobs and using analog gear gets you to the final mix faster. Why not just stay hybrid and have the best of both. Why limit the tools in the toolbox
because they work on stems tracked and recorded already with piece of hardwaree that we can just dream only.....most of the job has made in tracking ....most of people don't get this point.
Anyone know what console that is?
Everything he mentioned is true, however, in the video he still has a lot of analog stuff around him! Just for mixing, you can do great on the box. However, for tracking I got better results using a mix of analog hardware and plugins. For instance, I got a load of virtual instruments that I use in my productions that sound great in solo but not as good in the mix, by running them with some hardware inserts they get more character and some how a sound of a real analog instrument punch (trumpets, trombones, drums, percussion, bass and piano) that seats better on the mix.
I believe his projects are at 96k. Which makes a difference ITB. Ive been using metaplugin to oversample alot of PA plugs and jeez they are night and day when OSing
Ooo what’s this meta plug in??
@@WhoIsAlexElliott DDMF MetaPlugin is a plugin wrapper that you can load up to 8 plugins into and oversample the whole chain or create a multiband string. For instance I made a multiband alpha compressor at 4XOS. (4 instances divided with a crossover provided with meta)
@@cheadlejuice-musicproducti5875 incredible been mixing for years never heard of it. going to check it out now, thanks mate
@@WhoIsAlexElliott try the blackbox hg-2 in meta @4XOS. just like the hardware. Amazing, smooth and tight
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Records from Luther Vandross 😍
just the recall ability alone is worth it
Well, it wasn't till the converters got good.
software is just so superior, it already overtook hardware a long time ago.
I wonderabout the love for hardware vs what the actual sound you get from it. I'd like to take a bunch of engineers and mixers and do some a/b/c recordings done with neve, API, SSL and a $199 Focusrite and see how many guess right. I do love ITB mixing though. Saves so much $ and sounds just as good to general listening audiences. Plus a simple click saveand that recall of a project can't be beat.
People will champion whatever they do, even if it's a compromise in sound. These guys are at a time in their careers that they prefer to have it easy and not do any more recalls on outboard gear. An in the box mix doesn't sound the same as something that has been summed through a console, full stop.You gotta choose, good sound or convenience.
You wanna check with Andrew Scheps? He's totally ITB now.
Complete BS.., did you even bother to watch the whole video? Do you have 44 years of experience?
@@kwameeyiah Yes I know Andrew has started mixing in the box years ago. I don't have anything against mixing in the box, I sometimes do it because of I have too. I too choose convenience, with certain types of clients. 🙏🏻
@@CraigScottFrost You maybe right, that people might not be able to tell the difference, but I know from personal experience that when you compare an in the box mix to a mix that has been summed through a console or a summing box, the ITB mix always sounds flat, on the other hand the summed mix sounds more 3D. 🙏🏻. Thanks for commenting on my post. Good to have a real open discussion about this.
@@StreetsOfVancouverChannel You are entitled to your opinion. I did watch the whole thing and watched all or most VDO's on MB, including the ones on Mix with the masters which I have been subscribed to for years. I have almost 15years of experience in running a home recording studio, music production, tracking, mixing and mastering (on some projects I have to master, because of limited budget). 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Is he sponsored by a plugin company by any chance?
He was involved in the sound design of the SSL 9000 from plugin alliance. And he said in another interview that was the last thing he really needed to leave the hardware behind.
If you want a high fidelity sound in the box, you need to run projects at really high sample rates and / or use oversampling. And selection of quality plugins of course, like the Tokyo Dawn range.
Ehhhhh. I don’t know. Even without high sample rates and over sampling the quality is still pretty damn good.
@@IanJamesBeats True, if you enjoy aliasing artefacts.
@@esahm373 really? I’ve never noticed any weird aliasing in my mixes. Only when I use old sampler emulations.
@@IanJamesBeats It's not very obvious and depends on how much non-linear processing (eg saturation, analog emulation) you use in your mixing. But it can be the difference between a pro and an amateur sounding mix.
Very true. I discovered this when Reaper updated to allow oversampling of any plugin. I used to shy away from waves products because most didn't have internal oversampling and I didn't have the CPU to run projects at 96k. But now I've rediscovered how nice they sound and useful when oversampled. My mixes are finally getting that professional sheen they were missing.
He says in front of an anologue “dream”….😂
Yup. They're all hypocrites, ha-ha! It's like saying your wife cooks just as good as your "ex", who you secretly keep around.😆
he's older now, becoming a minilist it seems, fits into his idealogy.
¿Minimalist?
Less is more!
I had to chuckle when he said I don't miss the SSL while sitting in front of what I imagine is an SSL console.
It's a Neve console.
It's also not his studio, he was visiting for the video shoot.
Someday almost everything will be in the box. Plugins will replace most hardware. Only computers, interfaces and mics will remain. And a few stubborn souls.
..... just as likely, something we don't see coming.
And I for one, welcome our new computer overlords
Plugins are getting intergrated with analog gear. I see what you’re saying in a veeeery long future. Not anytime soon. This guy is well known, he can do what he wants
@@MannyXO Yes it would still take a long time. I've seen Scheps first championing ITB, but then I see Brauer with this statement. I mean hardware is great if you can afford it, but vintage gear will be more expensive to maintain in the future as parts run out. New repro hardware are great but still expensive. But when plugins really get better, in fact I'm seeing amazing side by side comparisons with hardware today that tell me, thats good enough for me, I'm not gonna drool over hardware and I will take that 30 dollar plugin instead. I still wish I had hardware. But when the Pros start quiting on their hardware, recalling settings and multiple instances are more than enough reasons to go ITB , then more and more recordists will do the same. For now we can still drool over hardware. Someday that may change. People want it quick and easy. If it sounds great or good enough. Cheers
@@swangonzalez4797 I have a hybrid setup with a few high end hardware units ( some plugin recallable) and a lot of good plugins and I don’t think people who own hardware necessarily drool over the fact that they have the unit just for the sake (like me) but how easily you can get to the sound you’re looking for and the crazy depth, plus it’s fun to work on and indispensable for tracking. I get your point and I loooooove plugins ad much as I love gear. My plugins do specific things (soothe, gullfoss, trackspacer, spctre, those innovative plugins per say), and even though hardware has its limitations just as Plugins do, they’re 2 different worlds. ITB is here to stay as much as OTB with plugin integration. Best of both worlds. Not to mention Dolby Atmos. That’s where it’s heading. I say this cause as long as bands exist (instrumentalists) there will always be a market because engineers as myself don’t track with plugins LIVE or in the STUDIO for the most part. That’s another big reason. These guys are great and I respect them but they can be very misleading.
Andrew Scheps Mixes in the box now for over 16 Year's now... Not new info
if you have to squeeze the tits out of some tracks then for me that is where digital breaks down still .IMHO ... your mileage may vary
He sounds kinda sponsored
We don't pay him (or any of our artists), if that's what you're referring to. That's not part of our endorsement model, since we only want genuine and enthusiastic recommendations from our artists.
TCOS, What you are witnessing are the last rats on a sinking ship, hardware is still vastly superior to any pro who's not selling you something
sounds like he was payed to make this video..............
that speaks for itself, he isn't
Everything is an advertisement.
Whatever happened to the BS a few years ago that analogue sounds better. This was the old school argument for YEARS about mixing and producing music which was a total myth. Circumstances and technology dragged this ancient liars out of the tar pits of tape and "I need an SSL to sound good" towards mixing in the box which ultimately is the best and most flexible way to do things. Why has it taken so long and why do people still cling to the old ways? Maybe I should start mixing on Edison wax cylinders? The argument years ago was, if Mozart, or Bach had access to a DAW and orchestral plugins, would they have still used a quill pen and paper. OF COURSE THEY WOULD HAVE USED A COMPUTER rather than paper.