Analog or control surface mixer?

[cstauffer]

Just curious...survey...who uses analog mixers, and who is using control surfaces, and why one over the other? Is analog dying or still going strong?

 

I am still using my Cooper because I like the sound and also like to see all the switches and knobs laid out in front of me, so I can easily get at them.

 

I have a NOMAD, for example, that I use here and there. I use it in run and gun mode and have a Mix 8 I can hook up to it for higher track count situations. It is great, but scrolling thru the menus to get to things becomes annoying at times. There is the ol "where is that function located again?". I realize though that there is a place for these kind of set ups, and they are necessary sometimes.

 

What about you?

 

CRAIG

[VASI]

Sorry, but an analog (or digital) mixer desk is something different from control surface (like Mix8). Two different workflows, two different setups. You can't say one over the other since you can't compare them. It's like you are trying to compare Zaxcom Nomad and Audio Development mixer.

 

What I prefer? Still the analog boards. I don't have see a proper control surface, yet (and a mixer/recorder with analog capabilities).

[Jim Rillie]

I have been using a control surface (Cantarem) for about 4 years now, and love the weight loss, and ability to make the Cantar do a 7 to 1 mono mix, with 8 faders totally configurable to play with. For cart based production sound for TV series (what I do the most) this system works best. Fast simple, easily configurable, weather resistant, works with gloves on...etc.

 

I lost a good few pounds off the cart when I stopped using my trusty AD149. First, I used the 6 faders on the Cantar, and didn't miss the AD 149 much. I purchased a Cantarem a year or two later and haven't looked back. Before multitrack, and going to DAT or Nagra, a good full featured mixer was a necessity for drama.

 

My philosophy about my present workflow, works around the KISS principle, and keeping the weight down. 

 

Regards,

 

Jim Rillie

[RPSharman]

If the CL9 had a little bit more functionality, I'd be ok with it. But I am using a Solice and love having a purpose-built analog board.

[Jeff Wexler]

One of the main things to consider is that a stand alone mixer (can be analog or digital) can usually feed ANY recorder you connect it to and in some cases the "recorder" can be a laptop computer. The connecton to the recorder from this stand alone mixing panel will either be incredibly simple (via Dante for example if both the mixer and the recorder are networkable) or a little more complex with quite a number of cables involved. The important thing will be if this stand alone mixer lets you do your job (mixing) the way you want to do it and provides enough inputs and outputs for the sorts of jobs you do.

 

Now, a control surface (mixer) is not really a mixer in the classic sense --- it gives you a certain degree of hardware, hands on access to the power, features and functions and flexibility of the recorder it is designed to work with. So, for example, the SD 970 at this time will not be able to use a control surface for mixing because the recorder lacks mixing internally. The Cantar, Deva, Nomad, SD 788 are all recorders that have mixing capabilities. Your "mixing" panel has to provide other features and functions besides mixing (like setting equalization, compressor and limiter, track assignment/routing, monitoring, etc.) and if the host recorder doesn't do these things well (limited equalization for example) the control surface won't have anything to control.

 

I concur with those who prefer a control surface for its weight savings and interconnectivity but whether this works for you or not is really tied to what recorder/mixer you are using and whether it suits your style of work.

 

I still prefer to use my Cooper 208 (stand alone analog mixing panel) feeding my Deva recorder. That said, by using the stand alone mixer, I am missing out on the amazingly flexible and powerful capabilities of the Deva. Simple example: let's say I have 2nd Boom Operator doing off camera dialog and it would be preferred for the 2nd boom op to hear only their mic most probably pre-fader (since I may or may not even be bringing this off camera dialog into the mix. To give the 2nd Boom Op the preferred signal can be done with my Cooper but it involves assigning the boom op output to a separate, AUX, setting the aux for that input to pre-fader, etc., etc. If I had been using a control surface for mixing and boom mic was straight into the Deva, putting an X in the proper box in the Output matrix would do it all.

[stevegrider]

On my cart, I prefer a Deva Fusion/Cooper 306 combo. I like having the controls laid out in front of me, and the extra routing options it provides. I never have been one to apply lots of EQ in the field, (this Cooper doesn't have much anyway) so that is another reason this compact (yet heavy) console works for me. I like the preamps and limiters, but the Deva preamps are of quality and no one complains when I record directly to the deck on OMB jobs.

[Wandering Ear]

I have built my setup around a control surface. For me it's a nomad and a mix8. The only thing I find myself missing most of the time is eq.

The advantage of a control surface is flexibility and weight. I have my Nomad bag ready to unlpug and go mobile, or plug in to the cart for more power / functionality.

[Constantin]

I switched from an AD149, too, but to the Cl-9. the job at rhe time required all inputs of ny 788 plus a mix, but I stuck with it. In part because of the reasons mentioned (weight loss, smaller footprint), but also because at the time I preferred the direct sugnal flow, even though my mixer had the A-D conversion built right in. But I also wish I the Cl-9 had more controls (EQ!), but it works OK for now without it.

I also have a keyboard attached which takes care of the menu delving part, so that's pretty quick to do.

[Philip Perkins]

There's no subsitiute for the Big Iron sound of an analog console if that's the sound you like.   That said, slimming down to a mixer-recorder has lightened my load quite a lot.  I miss the sound of the Big Iron but I very don't miss the weight and bulk and power issues any more, we just have to move too fast for that stuff these days.

 

philp

[Jim Rillie]

I couldn't have put more succinctly, Philip +1

[studiomprd]

I regularly work both ways... and thus my response is: it depends.

[Jeff Wexler]

"I regularly work both ways... and thus my response is: it depends."

 

Well, of course you do... and you're comment doesn't surprise me either. Depressing but not surprising.

[Jeff Wexler]

Another stellar day for "View New Content"

[studiomprd]

how does he do that ?? 

 

 

OK, to elaborate...

 

once again we discuss tools of the trade, options, for how we accomplish our results.  the choice of tools will vary from circumstance to another for a whole bunch of reasons...

whatever I prefer to use, I would hope that choice does not affect the results in a way that identifies the option I took; when was the last time you were watching and listening to something and said to yourself: "that would have been a lot better (or worse) if s/he had used (or not used) a control surface instead of an analog mixer..?

 

in lots of situations the choice is already made: for example a truck gig includes the mixer/control surface system that is installed on the truck that is hired, and most of us do not have the horsepower to control that choice.  all the new truck installaytion are with digital (control surface) equipment and that is because up and down the food chain they are desired and being requested.  this is also what is happening in venues.

so what is perhaps a more pertinent question is: can the audience tell ??  and if the archer is skilled with the contents of her/his quiver, then the answer is: probably not.

[justanross]

Another stellar day for "View New Content"

senator.jpg

Haha Jeff that's awesome.

As for the topic. This past year I was having a hard time deciding. I was leaning toward a control surface (mix8).

But then a local mixer was selling his old school Sonosax S8. And he let me use it for awhile. I love it! Sounds great.

Now just remember, I am a fairly new mixer. Cart stuff I'm just getting into. I've done a bunch of commercials this year and some second unit on Hell on Wheels and Fargo. It's also my first cart mixer so I'm still learning it. But one thing I love is it gives me an extra stage of gain. Which I have found useful for those quiet talkers.

[al mcguire]

>OK, to elaborate...<

 

Analog or digital, Michael has a disrespectful signal to noise ratio.

[justanross]

how does he do that ??

OK, to elaborate...

once again we discuss tools of the trade, options, for how we accomplish our results. the choice of tools will vary from circumstance to another for a whole bunch of reasons...

whatever I prefer to use, I would hope that choice does not affect the results in a way that identifies the option I took; when was the last time you were watching and listening to something and said to yourself: "that would have been a lot better (or worse) if s/he had used (or not used) a control surface instead of an analog mixer..?

in lots of situations the choice is already made: for example a truck gig includes the mixer/control surface system that is installed on the truck that is hired, and most of us do not have the horsepower to control that choice. all the new truck installaytion are with digital (control surface) equipment and that is because up and down the food chain they are desired and being requested. this is also what is happening in venues.

so what is perhaps a more pertinent question is: can the audience tell ?? and if the archer is skilled with the contents of her/his quiver, then the answer is: probably not.

YAY!!!! Mikes being helpful ;-)

[Jeff Wexler]

"so what is perhaps a more pertinent question is: can the audience tell ??  and if the archer is skilled with the contents of her/his quiver, then the answer is: probably not"

 

Sorry, Mike, this is NOT the question. None of us do the work we do to try and demonstrate the futility of blind audience testing to determine whether we made the right choices or not --- this is ridiculous to apply the "can the audience tell the difference" criteria to this particular decision. The issue of control surface vs. stand alone mixer and how to make that decision I believe has been adequately addressed here by several others. Adding in this over-used (by you) arrow and archer, no one can tell the difference stuff is pointless.

[RPSharman]

What I find remarkable is that Senator has either used, or is using, and has vast working experience with, every type of gear ever made or currently available on the market.

[Philip Perkins]

If I can tell the diff digital/analog in my headphones on location (with all the BG noise around me) then the editor+re-rec mixer at least will hear the diff too.  I recall the first day I used my last Big Iron console (M6) on location after a lot of either direct to DAT or computer interface mixing.  I was giggling uncontrollably, the sound made me so happy.  I don't know if Mazda sold any more cars from those spots because of this, but I was certainly easier to get along with that day (said Frances, my boomist at the time).  There's an old saying from the music biz that no one pays you for the mixer--you buy that for yourself.   For those of us who are kind of more running and gunning and sometimes struggling to keep up anymore, the mixer-recorder thing has been really great.  But I still miss the Big Iron sound...

 

philp

[Jeff Wexler]

What I find remarkable is that Senator has either used, or is using, and has vast working experience with, every type of gear ever made or currently available on the market.

Remarkable, indeed. Shakespeare had something to say apropos to this, possibly addressing Senator: “You speak an infinite deal of nothing.” Kind of has a nice ring to it.

[Jeff Wexler]

If I can tell the diff digital/analog in my headphones on location (with all the BG noise around me) then the editor+re-rec mixer at least will hear the diff too.  I recall the first day I used my last Big Iron console (M6) on location after a lot of either direct to DAT or computer interface mixing.  I was giggling uncontrollably, the sound made me so happy.

 

philp

+1 to Philip and the joy of listening to what we are recording and actually feeling the difference, appreciating it even if no one else cares.

[Tom Visser]

I don't really care if it analog or digital, at the end of the day, I just need the controls where I need them and if it is digital, to make any evidence of the "digitalness" to be transparent / abstract to me.

 

There are some "advantages" of control surfaces.  Typically...

 

physically smaller for a given set of functionality

lower power draw = less heat

cheaper to produce, generally increase profit margin for most markets

controls can be physically remoted from other systems

 

99.9% of the control surfaces capitalize on the smaller, lower power draw, and cheaper to produce aspects of the technology.  Manufacturers have been driven to the idea that less physical controls can be used thus decrease the cost of manufacture.  Ultimately, I feel that digital / control surface route has the capability to being technically superior and better sounding, but finding a product that fits both my needs and doesn't sacrifice too much on the controls is difficult to find.

 

I had a conversation with a couple people recently that perfectly summed up my opinion on the context-sensitive abilities of control surfaces (LCD menus, touch screens, "fat channel" etc...) vs dedicated controls (which analog product by default must support).  Anything that needs to be done during setup, in between setups, after last shot, can be contextual or menu driven.  Anything that needs to be done between "roll sound" and "cut" MUST have dedicated controls.  That includes faders, monitoring control, slate, confidence monitoring, PFL, PL, transport, filters (maybe even full EQ, but will take HPF as a minimum), and input trimming (getting more complicated now - but handled nearly perfectly with Zaxnet).

[Jeff Wexler]

Well said, Tom, and thanks for bringing this topic back on track. It is all about how we want to interface and work with our gear. Your last paragraph is most constructive regarding how we want to interact with the mixer and recorder. I will quote you below:

 

"Anything that needs to be done during setup, in between setups, after last shot, can be contextual or menu driven.  Anything that needs to be done between "roll sound" and "cut" MUST have dedicated controls.  That includes faders, monitoring control, slate, confidence monitoring, PFL, PL, transport, filters (maybe even full EQ, but will take HPF as a minimum), and input trimming (getting more complicated now - but handled nearly perfectly with Zaxnet)."

[justanross]

Well said, Tom, and thanks for bringing this topic back on track. It is all about how we want to interface and work with our gear. Your last paragraph is most constructive regarding how we want to interact with the mixer and recorder. I will quote you below:

"Anything that needs to be done during setup, in between setups, after last shot, can be contextual or menu driven. Anything that needs to be done between "roll sound" and "cut" MUST have dedicated controls. That includes faders, monitoring control, slate, confidence monitoring, PFL, PL, transport, filters (maybe even full EQ, but will take HPF as a minimum), and input trimming (getting more complicated now - but handled nearly perfectly with Zaxnet)."

Very well said. Makes my choice of my analog mixer feel that much better.

I do love this forum. Thank you Jeff.