beeba baba boobah bwuuuugh

  On 4/5/2011 at 11:05 PM, hahathhat said:

also, i don't want to mix on the computer !

this is important.

 

i have gone the other way, though -- programmed a track entirely with VSTs, then sent them all out to mix on my mixer....

This is why I don't understand why you get all up in my ass about wanting better AD/DA than I currently own. I'd like to be able to track indi parts into the computer through limited outboard gear, then send vsts and said multitracks back out through a physical mixer and back in as a stereo pair.

The problem that lube saibot might have with your mix is the degradation of ADADADADADAD through substandard conversion.

  On 4/5/2011 at 11:17 PM, acidphakist said:

  On 4/5/2011 at 11:05 PM, hahathhat said:

also, i don't want to mix on the computer !

this is important.

 

i have gone the other way, though -- programmed a track entirely with VSTs, then sent them all out to mix on my mixer....

 

 

This is why I don't understand why you get all up in my ass about wanting better AD/DA than I currently own. I'd like to be able to track indi parts into the computer through limited outboard gear, then send vsts and said multitracks back out through a physical mixer and back in as a stereo pair.

 

The problem that lube saibot might have with your mix is the degradation of ADADADADADAD through substandard conversion.

part of what annoys me about your tirades on the subject is you presume no one else has a clue. i have a fireface 800, which has plenty of channels and great ADDA. maybe it's not as good as whatever you have, but there is absolutely no reason for me to get anything better.

the idea of sitting there, doing nothing, as i wait for each of 20 tracks to dub through some fancy piece of outboard gear sounds painfully dull. i'm sure i really could get it to sound better by doing it, but i'd rather just write another song instead.

not really, my problem is that the mix is awful, which I'd expect from not "mixing on a computer" and probably just balancing stuff against each other via their output volume knobs or something.

brr.

is there really a point to doing that or is it just for scoring retro-chic e-peen points or something? because it's audibly and demonstrably holding you back.

even vhs head mixed inside a computer. and richard circa analords at least mixed stuff on a MIXER before and after it was commited to tape.

disregard this comment if in fact you ARE using an external mixer. but if so, WTF?

also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

just in case either of you missed this

use a soundblaster if you want BUT FUCKING MIX, EQ, AND PROCESS DYNAMICS PROPERLY AND ACCORDINGLY FFS

a super fancy interface will, AT BEST, only provide that extra 1% if you're a genius-level recording/mixing engineer. and if not, it will be just a thing that makes your shit 1% shinier before you muck it up via "ah who gives a shit, I'll just start another song".

i'm using an external mixer (yamaha MG24/14fx).

i'll try to explain why i like the hardware mixer: i used to write things entirely on the computer. things got more and more complicated, and it started to feel more like a hassle -- i wasn't able to let myself do anything simple, and some days you're just not in the mood for that level of work. then i started using the MPC+live mix instead, and it was difficult in the extreme! everything HAD to be simple, as i've always been a better programmer than performer. but it was exciting. visceral, even. the tracks were shit compared to my computer tracks, but they were much more fun to make. it's all very spontaneous, alive, in the moment... whereas on the computer it's a very deliberately crafted experience. like building a ship in a bottle (computer) vs. surfing (hardware) where it's all about reacting to the current situation. the hardware tracks have been gradually closing the gap in terms of mix and production etc. i guess my feeling is that if i had a bank of warm preamps + a hardware compressor to add to the way i currently do things, it would bring it up where it needed to be. that, and a couple more years of practice.

oh, alright then, fair enough.

you're still wasting time imho (stress the h).

i agree completely. this music stuff is a gigantic waste of time !

seriously, though, thanks for seeing this thread through. it's a fair point -- it doesn't matter if it's fun and the spirit's pure if the mix is too muddy to digest. i will definitely be pushing myself more in that regard.

nice tune. definitely could use some variation. I don't think the synths sound as corny as half of the other posts on this blog. Even if they did there is nothing wrong with corny synths. Look at artists like Hudson Mohawk who made a whole concept album off of cheesy sounds.

  On 4/5/2011 at 11:47 PM, hahathhat said:

part of what annoys me about your tirades on the subject is you presume no one else has a clue.

Oh Hat, there you go building strawmen yet again. If I presumed WATMM didn't have a clue, I wouldn't bother asking WATMM what they thought.

  On 4/6/2011 at 12:02 AM, hahathhat said:

i'm using an external mixer (yamaha MG24/14fx).

 

i'll try to explain why i like the hardware mixer: i used to write things entirely on the computer. things got more and more complicated, and it started to feel more like a hassle -- i wasn't able to let myself do anything simple, and some days you're just not in the mood for that level of work. then i started using the MPC+live mix instead, and it was difficult in the extreme! everything HAD to be simple, as i've always been a better programmer than performer. but it was exciting. visceral, even. the tracks were shit compared to my computer tracks, but they were much more fun to make. it's all very spontaneous, alive, in the moment... whereas on the computer it's a very deliberately crafted experience. like building a ship in a bottle (computer) vs. surfing (hardware) where it's all about reacting to the current situation. the hardware tracks have been gradually closing the gap in terms of mix and production etc. i guess my feeling is that if i had a bank of warm preamps + a hardware compressor to add to the way i currently do things, it would bring it up where it needed to be. that, and a couple more years of practice.

From a cost standpoint, you may as well get used to mixing in the box. I patiently track each track individually into my DAW because I don't have eight sets of Manley gear.

I know what you are getting at regarding creativity abounding whilst using only gear, but you'll find if you discipline yourself, you can use a computer and still get the same effect.

so guys,

does the mix on this sound any better?

http://soundcloud.com/nevenen/ariel/

not a new track, but i did do some things differently on it -- curious

really good track , especially impressive considering you have autism

i'm autistic, wat?

Fuck the mix, just make music!

  On 4/7/2011 at 2:33 AM, Dan C said:

Fuck the mix, just make music!

 

essentially !

but there's still room to put a little extra effort into the mix.

  On 4/6/2011 at 11:32 PM, The Pod said:

really good track , especially impressive considering you have autism

you suck

sweet track hathathathathathahthathathathathat i really enjoyed it. i actually really enjoyed everything you posted in this thread. i'll come back with more constructive criticism.

No, YOU suck!