"Poor Man's Neve"

[Duane Reese]

I know I'm not the first one to try this...

I have found, as many have, that computer mixdown just doesn't seem to cut the mustard. I know there are better digital EQs, dynamics and the like than what I have in my software, but it's just hard to beat real boutique analog gear. For most people, the problem is that we don't have an extra $50,000 to drop on a console with all the goodies and enough converters to make it happen.

Years ago I imagined what it would be like if I could run each track through one good EQ, comp/limiter and fader and back in, one at a time. The idea sounded crazy and impractical, until I tried it. To this day, I've never had better results, and with better converters and compressor, it can only get better from here. Mixdown environment is the next hurdle, but so far things are going pretty good.

I have found that the main thing you have to do, as you are adjusting, is to run your mix out of L-R outputs to monitor, and the track you are processing out of another output, through the goods and back onto a new track (and also into the monitor mix). You also have to hang onto the virgin track and document your settings, because if and when you need to adjust it, you will need to go back to that virgin track for output and set everything up how it was to continue (so you don't process the signal again and again). Naturally the best gear you can get, the better. It might also help to make sure your A/D and D/A converters are running off the same word clock. Another thing I haven't done, but plan on doing, is making clear plastic stickers with numbers to stick on a front panel that doesn't have switched settings in order to make documenting the settings easier. I documented my settings with a text file (font: fixedsys) but a spreadsheet would be ideal. From there, you can use gates and automation in the software provided and get just dandy results (and the panners). Everybody follow?

Some may say this is a no-no, and it does take some time to get the hang of it, but I've found it to be smokin'. It's definitely not for the faint at heart, but it makes a lot of sense one you realize that it actually can be done. If anyone wants to hear how good this comes out, send me a PM and I'll direct you to where you can hear it (it was professionally mastered after that, but it was still a good mix).

addendum: this will add a couple more hours to you mixdown time, no doubt. You have to wait for each track to reprint as you process them with your good stuff (do the laundry or something) but this might be a blessing in disguise because you give your ears a rest here and there, and they stay more fresh.

[Brian McGaughey]

That sounds like a good idea. With home DAW we don't pay per hour so it's fun to get creative like that. As long as you've got the track capacity to have 2 tracks for each keeper take, it's all good. Plus you'll never run out of clean socks!

I don't have any fancy outboard gear but what we did do was use a fairly decent single channel mic pre that noticably warmed up vocals one take at a time into the digital recorder. Also used it for mic'd steel and mic'd acoustic guitar.

My next fantasy, mix down from the DAW to 2 tracks of magnetic tape before sending for mastering. I miss "that sound".

[Duane Reese]

Yeah a lot of people mix down to tape before mastering to warm it up, fill in the cracks and so on. I've done it myself.

For doing the Poor Man's Neve thing, I was using an Amek System 9098 pre/eq for the EQ end of it (which is especially good because it has all of those handy filters), and using a dbx 160x compressor (which isn't bad but if I were to get serious, I'd want something better than that). That is basically what it boils down to: ending up with an additional track from every one original track and working it like that. Of course the virgin tracks are muted... Oh and color coding the tracks is a must; it's the only way to sanely get through it. I'll tell you though, it's much more simple and practical than what most engineers would probably think, once you get the drill down, and it's really effective. The only way I'll stop doing it is if someone drops an old Trident in my lap. Until then, the results this gives you are almost criminal.

Oh but definitely not the kind of work you can do on the clock, no.

[Brian McGaughey]

...the results this gives you are almost criminal...

Do share.

[Bryan Daste]

Are you processing each track through the same settings on the EQ and compressor?

[Duane Reese]

Are you processing each track through the same settings on the EQ and compressor?

No. I'm using the same physical unit(s) on each track (comp, EQ) but each track has its own settings, and these settings must be documented so that you can go back and redo them as needed... Well, unless you don't mind going back and starting from scratch on the track that needs adjusting. I don't know -- I guess if you mix that way, then you don't have to document, but if all you want to do is make a little tweak, you could save some time and trouble by having them documented and returning to what it was.

When you get all of your settings dialed in for a given track and record the result on a new track, the main thing you don't want to do is try to make tweaks on the new track, because then you are running the signal through more stuff. The way I learned is that you always want to get as close as you can to one amplifier and a straight wire.

Oh one other name, besides "Poor Man's Neve" that this process could be called: "Manual PARIS".

I think my preferred way to mix, if I had a top-end console but no automation, would be to run all the tracks into the board and dial them in, but instead of mixing out of the stereo bus, I would run out of the direct outs and back in onto new tracks, and finish mixing it there where I can use automation. This is basically doing it that way, except that it's like having all but one channel on the board inoperable, so you have to do it one at a time.

Heck, maybe it's easier to just get a board!

[Kevin Rose]

Hello all, this is my first post here, I'm an engineer/producer first, guitarist next and just got a Stage One yesterday.
As per printing each track, the converter buildup can 'cause issues with the audio which may in turn be working in your favor. It's always good to use your ears rather than "common knowledge." Mixing in the box is a lot harder than on a great console but in my experience mid-low level conversion can cause a "round trip haze" that doesn't appeal to me.
Anyhoo, hopefully I can add to this part of the site in trade for learning from steel experts too.

[Brian McGaughey]

Welcome Kevin,

I'm a couple years in on steel so can't offer you much help there, but sure look forward to your contributions around here regarding audio engineering.

By "round trip haze" are you refering to a certain frequency range that loses definition due to another round of analog to digital conversion?

[Kevin Rose]

Welcome Kevin,

I'm a couple years in on steel so can't offer you much help there, but sure look forward to your contributions around here regarding audio engineering.

By "round trip haze" are you refering to a certain frequency range that loses definition due to another round of analog to digital conversion?

Yeah, many of the mid-low level converters have a sound that is less euphonic than the "sound" of higher end ones. I learned long ago after selling the 2" machine that conversion and how it handles audio is a big deal.

For years people used to say "get it as hot as possible to capture the most bits" but this never sounded right to me. After years of experimentation and some "big guys" telling me what I was hearing, most converters start to break down, get pinched and worsen over -6db. Sticking to this is prolly the best one can do sonically ITB (in the box).

This smear/haze starts to fold down the stereo image, causing cloudiness, poorly defined top and bottom and I've heard the word veil used to describe it...

I'm a huge fan of outboard processing, plugs just don't give back the way iron can.

Another spot that breaks down ITB is the use of "in between panning" which once again may sound right in your mix room but translated much worse elsewhere. The old Neve's have an L, C and R pan scenario and it works. That doesn't mean everything has to be Beatle's Stereo style, just that Stereo mics should be hard panned not at 3 and 9 o'clock etc.

Take a mix you've already done, use LCR mixing pan rules and reprint, I can guarantee your mix will be more alive.

I feel like I'm lecturing on my first day here, y'all have a great site here and I don't want to come across like a blowhard on day one, but this unfortunately is what i live for.

Duane,

My favorite way to mix is DAW into a console but taking full advantage of the summing properties of the console which is another hot button topic on the internot. The only rub is we use the DAW automation and lose some compressor control. But a good console always sounds better doing the summing, especially on dense mixes.

[Duane Reese]

Hi Kevin, and welcome to the forum!

You are right about the converters... I can't say enough about what a difference it makes, especially when you are doing a recycle technique like this. Of course I'll also agree that it's more ideal to let the analog console's summing bus do the work, because you don't have a choir of A/D converters (and all of the alterations and artifacts that go with them) in the mix; you only have two. There's two reasons I would prefer to use the automation after the board and sum digitally: one is that you could automate out console channel noise when they go idle (again, moving fader automation is the dream) and the other reason (call me crazy) is that I've had better luck controlling my dynamics when I sum digitally. My opinion about that could easily do a 180 depending on what board I was using.

Of course my real preference (if money were no object) would be an A827 and A820, an API 2488 and an EMT plate. I had a large-format 24x24 console at one time, which was an obscure brand that had Valley People LZ-1 transamps and 5-band EQs modeled after a Lance Parker but with wider bells, and I'd love to still have it but those days are gone. I'd love to still have my hotrodded-to-24 Ampex MM-1000 too... Maybe someday I'll win the lottery but until then, the recycling technique seems to get 50 times closer to pro-level mixing results than full digital mixing, even as unwieldy as it is. The very best part about it is that it's attainable for those who have a lot of patience but not a lot of money. Believe me though, I'd love to do things the real way.

I've also got to comment on the whole "use all of those bits" concept... That's what they told me too, and to compress in tracking to get it to fit, but this overlooks the fact that you a). don't get any warmth from tape saturation because you aren't running tape, and b). you don't have to worry as much about rising above the noise floor as you do with analog anway. This is why a little more seasoned expert told me to just get used to printing lower when tracking digitally, and it's worked great for me.

[Bob Martin]

You guy's make a lot of sense and I would like to try it out but unfortunately I have sold most of my older good (semi-pro) as well as some pro outboard tools. I just thought I'd never need them again and actually for what I do when I am able to get back to it doesn't call for that much time and love and care ie 99% of it is for personal use because of my mobility problems.

But don't count me down and out just yet I just need to get my new prosthesis and learn how to use it I'll have a good chance of doing some more sessions in my studio...

Big Bob

[Kevin Rose]

Yeah, the days of big desks are fewer and farther apart here...

I'm an API addict...

By controlling dynamics I suppose you mean compression and how the DAW automation effects it by being automated pre outboard?

I've never seen channel noise as a problem on high end consoles, any clean up on the track is done in the DAW here.

Man it's been a while since i've dropped in, the Steel and producing is taking up all my spare time (including fishing time).

[Ben Strano]

It is all about what you are most comfortable doing and how YOU work best.

I can mix better in the box. I grew up mixing in the box. One of the very few times I mixed on a console, Duane Eddy was sitting next to me. We decided to do one mix without the Neve automation (flying fingers). Halfway through it I said to Duane "this is fun... I have never mixed without automation before". You should have seen the look he gave me... he turned to his wife and says "can you believe this kid".

Honestly though... I want the mixes I did for him back. I wanted to do them in the box and he wouldn't have any of it. I could kill the Neve mixes with a computer. It's how I grew up... how I learned, how I am comfortable.

One of my best friends grew up working on consoles. He even worked at STAX... he too is more comfortable in the box. That is how he works best. It isn't an age thing it is a mindset thing.

I have heard great engineers who like consoles mix poorly using a computer and great engineers who like the computer mix poorly using an SSL.

It is all about comfort. I don't know if it is the fact that I am not mixing while the clock is running, I am used to my plug ins (some of which do things no outboard could dream of... linear phase eqs for example) or that I am in my personal studio and can (if I feel like it) mix in my underwear.

Some guys just never got the hang of the computer... but trust me... those guys have felt the pinch and will start to feel it harder... sooner.

Budgets ain't what they used to be.

The point being... however you get the best results... that is YOUR best method. I don't care is you like mixing with the speakers backwards... if you work best that way (and people who know good mixes from bad ones agree) that is your best method.

Same goes for steel... technique (which I have none of) and gear is great... but what makes you play best?

[David Pinkston]

I think playing steel in your underwear works best with the speakers backwards.

[Duane Reese]

I got an EQ just for use on this concept: a White 4200A. I like 1/3 octave EQs because decisions are easy — parametric is nice but you can't always have your cake and eat it too with those — and for the number of bands, this is the cleaner than any graphic that can be had, as far as I know. Each band is a cut-only passive filter. Let's see how she does!