Jump to content

Analog or control surface mixer?


cstauffer

Recommended Posts

JW: " The issue of control surface vs. stand alone mixer and how to make that decision "

and I stand by my commentary:  often the decision is made by others, as in many contexts the equipment is not owner/operator.  when buying (our own) equipment, as always there are numerous factors, objective and subjective, and especially as to the job at hand.

 

At one school, I recently installed 2 mixers of similar size (24 ch category) one was old school analog, and the other, from the same manufacturer, was a digital mixer;  in the course of their educations, our students get exposure to both, and to smaller (aka bag) mixers as well.  Is one better than the other ?? sorry, there is no absolute answer to that,  they can both be terrific...(or crappy!)

 

RPS: " 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. "

it is due to my specific situation that I have had, and continue to have the opportunity to try, and or use, a lot of different equipment -- not all makes and models, to be sure-- a wide variety of technologies and designs,  not particularly remarkable, but just not as specialized.

Edited by studiomprd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"JW: " The issue of control surface vs. stand alone mixer and how to make that decision "

and I stand by my commentary:  often the decision is made by others, as in many contexts the equipment is not owner/operator.  when buying (our own) equipment, as always there are numerous factors, objective and subjective, and especially as to the job at hand."

 

In this case, the decision is not being made by someone else, it is being made by the original poster. The questions was not "when you are faced with being forced to using somebody else's kit do you prefer to that to be a stand alone mixing panel or an interface". Stick to the topic which is really about the relative merits of one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about "setup" controls vs "live-change" controls, and what happens with me on a mixer recorder is that basically I don't do those (non simple level) changes while rolling.  Too bad, but that's what isos are for.  Meanwhile though, live FOH people make dynamic changes all over the mixer while the music is going, via "fat channels" and "one channel or one param at time" screens so it can be done--it just takes more concentration and more time.

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW: many control surfaces actually control analog mixing, and many digital mixers have a lot of analog signals going in and out...

I still say it is (at least at this time) a subjective, personal choice, though I foresee it becoming less optional in the future, as less of the old analog/iron equipment is manufactured and supported...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trained using a cooper 106 +1. Beautiful sounding desk, great smooth faders, brilliant flexibility of control.

 

Since then I have largely been bag based. An upcoming job has warranted the purchase of a flatbed mixer and I have mentally debated Cooper vs Mix8 many times. Although I much prefer the sound  and feel of the Cooper, the Mix8 is a better fit for me for a number of reasons. 

 

I leave my gear in a bag and a single connectivity cable is compelling. It makes it so easy to go from cart to bag mode. 

 

Often find find myself working in tight or rough terrain's and I live in/store my gear in a four story walk up, so light is good. 

 

Power consumption. I prefer to run off batteries and be free of a stinger, for added flexibility.

 

The car I drive, a Mazda CX-5, also has a significant determining factor in this choice. How much gear can I pack? 2x rigs in bags, Rastorder fold up cart, several pelican cases, carpets, boom poles, cable bags etc. Space starts getting tight and I like  minimise the game of tetris. Yes I could use a bigger car/van, which I have no desire to at the moment, nor would the change over be cost affective.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this needs to be split into two aspects: SOUND and ERGONOMICS.

There are digital desks with "analog" ergonomics (knob-per-function approach) but without that iron inside.

 

For me, it was two main factors that made me decide to go the CL-8 control surface route.

(1) I want to have all recorder inputs go to isos as well as a mix track. An analog board would cost me at least one iso.

(2) I want to switch from cart to bag quickly, and with the whole functionality I'm used to.

Both are requirements of the jobs I usually do: little rehearsing, lots of moving, often off-road, often wire everybody "just for safety".

The only thing I sometimes miss is parametric, knob-per-function EQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pk: " The only thing I sometimes miss is parametric, knob-per-function EQ. "

however...

maybe that is because you are used to all those individual knobs..?

folks who learn first on the newer stuff tend to get used to it, and prefer that functionality,  and they are, in the end equally adept and comfortable with it.  folks changing over after years on big consoles are also finding that "converting" isn't nearly as painful or time consuming as they expected, and they quickly become just as capable, and happy as before.

 

Nate's response above is an example of what I have been saying about each person needing to make their own choice, if the choice is available, and for their own reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pk: " The only thing I sometimes miss is parametric, knob-per-function EQ. "

however...

maybe that is because you are used to all those individual knobs..?

Actually, I'm one of those young folks, and not used to lots of knobs at all. I did start out with just a Nagra 4.2 and a 416, no mixer at all, doing lowest budget stuff. But all serious work I've done so far was on a 788T with CL-8, for the reasons given above. The desire for knob-per-function EQ (operable in real time) has only come recently, perfecting the on-set mix in difficult locations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my cart I have a CL9 but I leave the  CL8 on my 788. So I can switch very quickly from the cart to a bag scene or a small venue.

Sometimes I use the CL9's eq, but not so often.

CL9 permits a faster work than an analog mixer : arming tracks is safer, choosing post or pre, using the eq, the delay , ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If cost were no object, I think a standalone digital mixer is the best way to go, because of the number of outputs, processing, and routing. You can do a lot within (say) the Yamaha 01V96 that few analogue mixers can do, and I often run out of "gozintas" with control surfaces. I've used the Zaxcom Mix 12 and the Sound Devices CL9, and they're both great for what they do and are very light, but neither can do everything the Yamaha can do. The advantage of the Yahama is if the recorder craps out, you can drop in any other timecode recorder and keep going; if you have a control surface and the recorder craps out, you're done for.

 

On the other hand: the control surfaces are much, much smaller, lighter, and consume less power than a full-blown mixer, and size and power are also very important considerations. In a cart based system, my preference would be for the Yamaha, but I think the Senator is right and there's a lot of "it depends" here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case there's the necessity for yet another ten cents, I'm an analogue guy, always will be. I often wonder why EQ in production sound is even an issue. I use EQ extensively and always have because the voices I record need it. Simple as that. That's why I use an analogue mixer because i can EQ on the fly between words, takes, sentences whatever. Routing has never been an issue for me as there have always been ample outs on my boards. I like the new digital systems from afar anyway and don't plan to embark on a relationship with them, primarily because retirement is on the horizon and I'm happy where I'm at, and more importantly so are the people that hire me. It's a digital world out there and I see the writing on the wall for analogue, but don't erase the wall just yet, let me lie on the beach in Hawaii for a while and get to a point where I don't change my mind about retiring. What was this thread about again....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Talking about difference in sound between systems using a control surface and systems using a "big iron" mixer is curious to me, because there is no difference based on the two system types. Whether mixing with a stand-alone analog-only mixer, or a control surface that controls the mixing taking place in another device, both systems use analog inputs and line amplifiers, and both systems use A-D and D-A converters to record and monitor. An argument could be made about how changes in level and EQ are made, but even then it's about the quality (high or low) of the analog mixer versus the quality (high or low) of the digital mixer. When the argument is for the "warmth" or "musicality" of transformers (which is actually distortion of the microphone signal), either system can use transformers or not, and I'll add that the Sonosax SXST is usually considered the best sounding (lowest distortion, lowest noise, highest dynamic range) analog mixer for field use, its audio circuits are transformer-less.

 

With a lot of years mixing with a variety of analog mixers, digital mixers, digital/analog mixer-recorders, and control surfaces, I've found that the most likely difference is in the headphone monitoring circuit, which typically favor analog mixers. So for a fair sound quality comparison of the end result, it would be best to take a line output into a single external headphone amp.

 

Philip, I'm thankful that you pointed out that you can detect these subtle differences in the field with headphones, which helps make my case for the accuracy of headphone monitoring for choices such as microphone types, mic placement, riding gain, and EQing in the field.

 

GT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the real world the two types of circuits are often not quite as similar as Glen poses.

Many of the better stand alone mixers utilize discreet circuitry, and sometimes even maintain internal balanced circuits, as well as board layouts optimized for a more singular function.

While I'm willing to stand corrected, I'm unaware of any of the control surface capable recorders we deploy in our industry going to those lengths, let alone having the physical space to do so, in their preamp designs. Add to that any sonic differences that VCAs might add, and Philip's statements stand supported.

While the higher end (i.e. Sound Devices, Zaxcom, etc.) multipurpose units sound excellent, higher end stand alone mixers (I.e. Sonosax, Cooper, etc.) have the edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GT: " because there is no difference based on the two system types. "

If GT is referring to results, which is what I commented on earlier, I agree..

JB: " In the real world the two types of circuits are often not quite as similar as Glen poses. "

I agree here, too,  but then it gets fuzzy about actually being able to hear any differences, and if they are that very very subtle, are the tradeoffs perhaps worth, or not worth makingt ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glen Trew says: "Talking about difference in sound between systems using a control surface and systems using a "big iron" mixer is curious to me, because there is no difference based on the two system types. Whether mixing with a stand-alone analog-only mixer, or a control surface that controls the mixing taking place in another device, both systems use analog inputs and line amplifiers, and both systems use A-D and D-A converters to record and monitor."

 

I agree there may be little or no difference in the MIXING part of the equation but your comments on this subject seem to minimize one of the key differences, differences which DO in fact affect the quality of the recording.

 

This takes me back to one of the main differences I was mentioning: with a stand alone mixing panel, whether it be analog or digital, you have all the mic preamps, line amps, monitoring, equalization circuits, high pass filters and so forth in that box --- the recorder it is connected to only has to make the recording. With a hardware interface (to the recorder), all of the above mentioned, mic prehs, EQ, etc., are in the recorder. In this case, the choice of what recorder to use is an important factor. So, if for whatever other reasons you decide to go the hardware interface route, you must consider the recorder for which this interface is designed. Simple example: if you want to use a Sound Devices 788 and its interface, but you also need comprehensive equalization, compressor and notch filters that the recorder does not have, you will not have these things. If you were to choose a Deva and its interface, the Deva would provide these things for those who feel they need them on their inputs. A stand alone mixing panel, analog or digital, that has all the features and functions you feel you need, mic preamps and monitoring of the quality that you want, the mixing panel could feed either recorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I loved about the cooper 106+ is I could pull out each channel strip and thoroughly clean them. Something that can't be achieved as easily with new consoles.

 

The faders also felt a lot smother than any control surface I have used.  Old school mixers had a little more tension, less plastic feel to the faders, that seemed natural to finger dexterity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the real world the two types of circuits are often not quite as similar as Glen poses.

Many of the better stand alone mixers utilize discreet circuitry, and sometimes even maintain internal balanced circuits, as well as board layouts optimized for a more singular function.

While I'm willing to stand corrected, I'm unaware of any of the control surface capable recorders we deploy in our industry going to those lengths, let alone having the physical space to do so, in their preamp designs. Add to that any sonic differences that VCAs might add, and Philip's statements stand supported.

While the higher end (i.e. Sound Devices, Zaxcom, etc.) multipurpose units sound excellent, higher end stand alone mixers (I.e. Sonosax, Cooper, etc.) have the edge.

John, open Deva, Fusion, 788, or other recorder/mixers and you'll find a mix of ICs and discreet components in the analog audio circuits. Open up a Sonosax SXST and you find a mix of ICs and discreet components in the analog audio circuits. The front and back of the analog audio circuit is not dependent on whether or not the system uses a control surface. The quality of the sound is completely dependent on the quality of the design and build, and, of course, the skills of the pilot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, open Deva, Fusion, 788, or other recorder/mixers and you'll find a mix of ICs and discreet components in the analog audio circuits. Open up a Sonosax SXST and you find a mix of ICs and discreet components in the analog audio circuits. The front and back of the analog audio circuit is not dependent on whether or not the system uses a control surface. The quality of the sound is completely dependent on the quality of the design and build, and, of course, the skills of the pilot.

Unfortunately, just saying they all contain "a mix of ICs and discreet components" only serves to obfuscate the issue. Cars all contain "a bunch of nuts and bolts" but that doesn't address the differences between a Lincoln and a Ferrari.

If you are contending that there is no sonic difference whatsoever between a Deva's preamp and a Sonosax preamp, I don't agree.

If you're saying that any difference has minimal effect on the final product a location sound mixer delivers, then I can buy your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...