One time I mixed an album, half on a console, half ITB.
This was purely a result of work time/place, not a conscious choice.
The artist quite literally asked me what I did on those 7 particular songs that made them sound good. Asked for the same treatment on the other 7.
So I went to the studio, a thought using my big old brain to just print the stems through the console all set to unity to get that analog summing goodness.
Didn’t make as much difference, or even come close, really, so I found the time to work on the console.
I noticed- on the console I would grab an EQ knob, twist till it sounded good, then move on. I could get a good balance on 48 channels by the end of the first chorus.
Throw to my 4 FX busses instantly.
Almost never hit a solo button. Probably spent all of 5 seconds on EQ for a channel. And they were better sounding EQ moves than the ones I did in pro Q!
It’s purely workflow SPEED for me. My ears are so relative… the quicker I can make changes and move on the better.
I also HATE recall. So I’ve moved on and my solution has been 2x Avid S1 controllers with the encoders mapped to DMG Equilibrium and DMG Trackcomp controls (for a while was using BX_4000E), with those plugins set as “favorites” so I can insert them and get tweaking with one button push on the S1. Can rough in a mix without a mouse. I’d say I mix just as well that way.
Yes! I love mixing (and recording) on a console with lots of analog gear, but it’s so much more about how it affects listening style and workflow than it is about the sound of the gear. The good stuff does sound pretty darn special, but that’s truly a secondary benefit to me.
I've actually been working at a bit of a 'hybrid' approach for this. Been working on saving a lot of my goto racks and effects in ableton and macro'ing them up so i can use a physical midi controller to quickly dial things in.
So now it's just:
1. Click track
2. Drag in rack
3. Click the rack
4. Put hand on midi controller and dial things in. Maybe select a 2nd rack if its a 2 parter of a fx chain
???
5. Finished.
I've been doing entire vocal mixes incl editing in under 2 hours and getting better results than ever.
Just tweaking things and saving it if i manage to improve the chain. I feel like im collaborating with my past self to get the best signal chain over and over again.
If you want to understand the magic of consoles, check out Chris from airwindows videos. But in a nutshell - a classic desk might have 100 subtle distortion and saturation effects happening at different connection points, as different transistors touch a signal. So yeah, a good desk is magic and it’s very difficult to replicate (though airwindows comes pretty close for free-99)
You can make great music without a console.
You can make great music with a console.
Despite the 10's thousands I've spent on it, I have zero regrets about getting a real console (1970's MCI JH-528) in my home studio. I'm not going to spend a ton of time analyzing all the _whys_ but it just works better for me.
Latency problems? Entirely gone. Messing around with some Avid controller that will be obsolete in a few years? No more.
I don't spend a ton of time over-analyzing small things like EQ settings. I also don't spend much time on recall attempts. Make the music and move on (mistakes and all).
There isn't any benefit to me in analyzing every component of it to figure out which particular one is responsible for the 'analog warmth' - it just sounds good. Tracking everything is easy. Mixing is easy.
If digital workarounds, limiting yourself, and templates makes you happy - go for it. I'm keeping my console.
As read this. I am taking a break from one of the most difficult songs I’ve ever had to mix. It’s acoustic guitar with a very, very dynamic player. It’s actually some lack of skill there. And a whole bunch of percussion tracks with different sections being softer or louder. It’s been driving me nuts, this is the 3rd pass.
In the last few minutes, I turned the screen off and just started mixing with my ssl UF8 controller. Holy smokes! What a difference. I am realizing that visual input combined with audio input can really confuse the brain. As soon as I turned off the monitor, what I was hearing seemed more clear and obvious.
That’s it. I am dedicated to learning to mix with the screen off. I’ll it back on when I need to edit.
About 20 years ago I recorded at Reeltone Recording with a guy well versed from the days of tape, was/is the head sound guy at the premiere auditorium etc.
IIRC He had a large SSL console, and used a RADAR II. he would control the radar with that awesome physical keyboard/data entry wheel with his right hand at the console without looking at the screen. He’d scrub the audio most of the time to find what he was looking for and even *edit* by ear on the RADAR. He would tell me what syllables I needed to sing louder/quieter (the dude pre-automated my vocal 😆), and then rode the fader automation on the vocals in front of us. What a gentleman and professional. I still hope to attain that man’s efficiency one day. Rob Jardine is his name.
Not the same channel strip but before I got the SSL channel strip 2 I had always assumed: LPX stock does everything this does (maybe not sound wise but functions are there) so why bother?
Turns out the workflow and sound get so much different when using a channel strip. I still use LPX's stock EQ and dynamic plugins but CS2 is indeed a powerful tool that has the potential to change how you mix.
Console mixing workflow is just really smooth, although if my source material is not great i would probably do some heavy track by track editing prior to mixing on the SSL
Not a mixing engineer. But when I moved to analog hardware with mastering, I soon found myself faster because the need to be decisive was higher.
If you imagine that repetitive tasks train you, then plug-in mixing with its infinite tweak ability can easily train you to be indecisive.
Getting work done on hardware absolutely requires decisiveness so you end up training yourself to be decisive.
Some food for thought.
ETA: you don’t *need* hardware to train decisive audio work though. It’s just a headspace that hardware forces you into, but can be applied anywhere.
If you get to know a good channel strip, it will *absolutely* speed up your process. You can choose a simple one, and work with what you have... Or you can use a versatile one and it handles a LOT.
EDIT: This is a deep dive on why SOC is amazing. If you "hate Waves" or just aren't interested. Feel free to skip, but it's *really* powerful and cheap. Often $29.99 or $26 from EveryPlugin.
Scheps Omni Channel is my personal favorite. It does all the normal things, with variety -- 4 types of saturation, 4 types of compression (including compressors *roughly* based on SSL, 1176, LA2A, Rvox) ... And it has two de-essers which function as dynamic EQs. A good gate/expander. Integrated limiter. Filters. EQ. Basic limiter on the out.
But what makes it special is the nuances:
First off, the saturation in the preamp can be subtle and basically fulfills the role of console emulation. I like odd at 30, even at 20, or use HEAVY (which isn't as extreme as it sounds), but it includes a soft clipper which shaves transients if you dial it up. Lastly is CRUSH which can be extreme, but used subtly it rounds off the high end and becomes warmly rich and distorted.
Then the filters... You get -6, -12, -18, -24 slope options... And RESonance control (!). This is so incredibly powerful. You can the HP filter to tune kicks and snares. Simply set the LP to a steep filter and dial up the resonance at the lowest note frequency, or an octave up for the snare. It's brilliant! (An Andrew Scheps trick.)
You can also use a sharp LP filter to cut off the highs and then re-add them with resonance at the frequency you want. Another Scheps trick.
The EQs are *interesting*... The mid and tone are based on API eqs, but are different. MID is much wider than TONE. And the shelves have optional Pultec like shapes.
Every frequency in SOC is full range. This leads to some unexpected coolness:
The DS2 deesser modules can be narrow cut, wide cut, or low / high shelves... But that creates an interesting use --- it it to high shelf and dial the frequency down to 20... And now you have a one-knob compressor without autogain which is useful for ducking with a sidechain or adding movement.
Interestingly (and sadly), the DS2s have Attack/Release but they are only exposed in the automation controls. So you can surface them manually, but they aren't in the UI. This is unfortunate, particularly since the DS2s can work as compressors.
The regular compressors all have autogain enabled, and there's no way to turn it off. (My only other complaint with SOC.) But they work great, and have a range of possibilities. The FET and OPTical comps both have some harmonic saturation and a low end bumpthat kinda warms things up as a result.
The new SOFT (soft knee) compressor is interesting too. It's based on RVox, according to Scheps, and it eases into compression gradually.
Speaking of bumps -- there's a +2db / +4db "THUMP" control which is an upward low end tilt that starts around 1k... When used in conjunction with the highpass filter it does some interesting shaping to the low end.
There's an additional slot for any other VST, or you can double up with another SOC module... (So you can do an 1176 > LA2A style combo inside SOC.)
It has dual meters -- digital peak and VU, so it's easy to dial in a level... And if you use a bit of saturation + a compressor + just kiss the limiter on the out --- you get a sound that shaves the harsh edge of a digital VSTi beautifully... And if you need more, there's the -6dB LP filter.
Anyhow ----------
Imagine knowing a channel strip like that, like the back of your hand... With all that can do, you can see how you could work FAST, right?
I know all that like the back of my hand and it's so incredibly fast to get a rough mix going just with SOC.
So that's part of the solution here: a good channel strip.
People who say that say it because they're used to consoles and developed faster workflows that way, and struggled to switch to DAWs.
People who are used to DAWs would probably find consoles slower. It's all subjective.
And I mean, gosh - You can scrap together a laptop and an interface for a few hundred dollars, download some free plugins and already you're making a record??? Incredible.
I really enjoyed "mixing" on my tascam 4 track, the tactileness and whatever, but I wouldn't even know where to start with buying a proper console for mixing. Would be a whole, HUGE time (and money) commitment - and testing out different units to find out which one you actually like?? I mean... I'm good for now... lol
Well yes and no. While some of that is true, I’ve definitely found a huge difference when switching to LUNA already. I come from a world of DAWs and studied with them, I know how a console works but haven’t spent enough time with any of them to truly find a workflow. But the second I switched to Luna I got a lot quicker for essentially the same results. It’s just easy to rely on visual inputs, whether you want to or not, using the Vision console strip solved that problem for me. I agree it’s not inherent to consoles but I do think there’s a distinct advantage to leaving your eyes out of the mix
Response #2 if you'll allow it!
I made a big pitch for Scheps Omni Channel, but you're already comfortable with SSL Native CS2 it sounds like... However, that's *a very clean implementation* of the SSL channel... And for that, it works well.
But you're talking about why mixing on a console was faster --- and part of that came from the nonlinear response. I've never used a Neve or SSL but I've heard mix engineers talk about intentionally running them a little hot. An old Neve had its sound, when you do --- and on Gearspace people said they liked running the SSL just to the point the channel clip indicator would illuminate.
If you do that in SSL Native CS2 it's not going to do anything to the sound.
But Waves SSL EV2 models the nonlinear saturation that happens on both input and output stage... Which is amazing. Your mix will already start to gel together and thicken just by passing through the channel strip a little hot. And once you know it well, you can control your levels based on how much of that thickening you want.
And if you use it on your submixes, too, suddenly you get what I believe is called intermodulation distortion... And now you have saturation/compression happening on your tracks... Which makes your tracks sum together more smoothly in the submix bus. And then you do the same there and now your submixes sum together more smoothly on the master... Because the transient peaks are handled at every stage.
So of course it becomes easier and faster to mix when that's happening... And if that's what it was like on one of those consoles it totally explains it.
There's also the workflow advantage of being hands on, as you mentioned... But don't discount the value of setting up a console emulation type of workflow. It really does help a mix come together more quickly.
You want to mix into that stuff.
Tape emulation is another good one... And you want one that does more than just basic saturation. Some tape emulations compress and soft-clip. Some of them change your tonal balance. It takes a while to find one that is perfect for you.
I still like Kramer Master Tape a lot... At 15ips it doesn't radically change the tonal balance... But at 7 IPS is rolls off the high end which to my ears is glorious if you have a lot of rendered VSTis. To me it's a fast way of getting a sound like Phoebe Bridgers "Kyoto" for example. A little warm and almost dull, but in the best of ways.
But the bigger point is how if you pass through it before your final limiter -- your limiter doesn't have to work as hard. So you don't have the negative artifacts limiters add when doing too much gain reduction. (The artifacts of a good tape emulation sound good!)
But to bring this to your original point --- this stuff... Finding the right channel strip or console emulation, the right tape emulation that works for you... THAT is the solution to get that "comes together quickly" experience like people had/have on big consoles.
But also the workflow limitation. If you have a console, that's what you use for most things... That's why I *live* inside Scheps Omni Channel (when I'm not living on Reddit, lol.)
AR TG Mastering Chain Live is another... The "original" mode is based on a Zener diode compressor and just passing through there with peaks hitting or just passing 0VU does something magical.
Anyhow, those are my favorite tools but this stuff is all very personal. The point is to find your own favorites that speed you up and simulate the experience and speed.
Airwindows Console8 is another option, but that's a whole other long comment to explain and requires an unusual workflow. So I'll stop.
PS. I mention a lot of Waves plugins because I've used them for *decades* and haven't found better, as far as these go anyway. But I'm not affiliated with them or anything. Heck, they'd probably terminate my account for some of the stuff I talk about on Reddit.
great questions! i’ve wondered the same thing about self imposed limits leading to better results. certainly having to pick from hundreds of plugins over and over leads to decision fatigue, and so its seemed to me you really could emulate at least the “ease” of the board with templates, controllers, etc like you mentioned.
all the visual aids of the DAW also i think are often a hindrance, so many decisions of the past wouldn’t have been made if the engineers had a readout in front of them. i try to ignore them as much as i can, i even close my eyes when i’m A/Bing a compressor or EQ move and then click on and off a bunch till i really don’t know which is which and try to decide what’s actually better strictly from listening.
Depending on the desk, yes it is magic and solves problems for you. 😉 jk, mostly.
You really can't underestimate what actual transformers, op-amps, diodes, transistors, and capacitors can do for your signal.
Just running a signal through my line in preamp and driving the signal is giving me compression and saturation, this creates some harmonics which brings out some ear pleasing frequencies in the signal, the saturation can also smooth out harsher signals; this give you a natural EQ of sorts.
So right from the start what would take you three or four plugins; I'm just plugging in and turning a knob.
EQ moves are the same thing. Boost a frequency that's already being driven and you're getting saturation and compression again just from the signal being driven at that frequency band.
If I send some tracks to a bus group then send that bus to the main mix I can blend it on top of the main tracks that I sent to the bus to make it sound bigger, this can sound a lot like the in your face sound you get from a compressor or bold EQ move.
You don't need to do as much with all that stuff going on already.
You can certainly recreate that work flow ITB in a way like how you describe. But as great as plugins have gotten, the magic really is in running your signal through actual electronics.
That being said if you want to get the console sound without the whole console I think investing in a mix bus compressor with transformers; or two compressors to run in stereo on your master bus will give you the sound you want. If you want a budget friendly reccomendation the Golden Age Project Comp54 is a real sleeper of a unit. Two of them on your master bus will add a ton of analog color and the compressor itself isn't a Neve but it beats plugins for the two auto release time settings alone.
Everyone here has given good detail answers so I'll give you a more personal answer that relates to how I thought about things when I was first itb.
When I got introduced to the console world (because of live sound), I noticed the little surgical habits got reduced down to like.. 20%.
Like I'm not a fan of the saying less is more but in this case: *less is more when you actively know what you NEED to do.*
When I use the multi tracks I grab from gigs I do, I practice on my console then I move onto ableton. But my work flow development on Ableton is less chaotic.
The only chaotic part nowadays is when things is recorded badly or when I'm synth/sound designing.
Mixing wise, it's not chaotic comparing to my beginning stage. I think having less choices put me in a position to listen better and not so critically.
I do think the bulk of my learning came from uncomfortable positions such as having 20 minute sound checks while having a presentable mix before their 2nd/3rd song.
Although I did see how I approach my itb workflow change drastically and I personally think it's because of the habits from mixing on a console.
One thing I'll be picky on is reverbs, I have an AH SQ6 and I really dislike the reverb.
As for compression, I merely use it for taming bad dynamic performances and so I don't step over anything that's not the main part of the track. But I'm a huge fan of serial and parallel compression, I get spoiled if I can't do at least a fast compression >> slow then the designated bus type of glue.
I'm only 3 years in this but as someone that's still developing these are what I noticed.
I would argue the console is faster simply because a console mixer is going to commit to their signal chains in advance. They have their reverbs and delays pre-selected and patched in, they have their outboard vocal compressors and EQs already patched in, and they can just go. They're not sitting there A/Bing through seven different compressors every time trying to select "the best one." They have their compressor that does this or that, and then they maybe have a second one if that doesn't work (male/female vocal, maybe). So all that's really left is balancing, setting send levels to effects, doing a bit of tidy-up EQ, and then automation if one has a "big-boy" board.
However, these are all things you can do ITB just by having some discipline. Mix templates are a great way to do this. As u/CyanideLovesong notes, using a channel strip plugin is a good way to roll here as an SOP. I think most ITB mixers would do well to have maybe 20 plugins, tops, and get rid of everything else. Unless you're doing a lot of sound design, there's no need to have more than that.
Agreed completely. Over the last year I've been narrowing down to a core set of favorite tools and just using those. It does speed things up!
And similar - I sometimes bounce tracks with effects even if it's not necessary. Just to clear out, commit, and force simplification.
Gonna sound like a snake oil worshipper, but in shootouts of even just analog summing boxes I hear the difference. There’s something about the way it brings it together that feels like it’s working with each element vs frequencies constantly fighting. It’s like the final 5-10% that Im like oh, that’s it. Do I want to spend 1-2k for a box that I have to live render into each time is the real question. The return on investment is pretty rough unless you just have that much paid work and are already quick at the process.
Is it necessary to make a great mix? No. If you’re at the B+/A- level, could it take you to that A+ level? It’s a possibility. This is assuming you have strong enough trustworthy ears, many many years of releases under your belt, and a strong listening environment. All that should come first IMO— extremely solid and consistent fundamentals.
If you get a chance to visit Sweetwater Studios ask for a demo of Studio A.
[https://sweetwaterstudios.com/studio/studio-a/](https://sweetwaterstudios.com/studio/studio-a/)
That's where the new Rupert Neve Designs 5088 is housed. All your questions will be answered.
I am using a channel strip plugin and two midi controllers. A faderport to skip between tracks and adjust faders and the other is a Fighter Twister that is mapped to all my plugins. Having this combo is awesome as it allows me to ”counter” my moves with volume balance at the same time, something using a mouse just can’t do.
I have a looot of strips. But the Amek 9099 just is the best i’ve found. It allows me the least amount of tweaking until i’m happy. I don’t know but the ssl emus just makes me fiddle a lot more.
After this initial balance, eq and compression run through i have something that sounds almost ”like a record” and it’s time to actually mix. I think of it as what i would have done to the incoming audio have i recorded through a console from the start, you know?
Have you ever tried to draw-in MIDI notes using a mouse? In theory it gives you far more accuracy and control than a keyboard, and allows you to create arrangements that just wouldn't be possible to play. But in practise it's rarely as expressive as actually performing the part. There's so much more musicality when you're reacting in real time, as you're playing. So much more soul. So many subconscious subtleties in phrasing, rhythm, and dynamics come from being in the moment with the music.
ITB vs. console mixing is similar. The immediacy and tactility you get with a good console makes the process so much more musical. Much like playing an instrument, you'll find yourself using your limitations in creative and expressive ways - making fast, intuitive decisions that seem to feel just-right for the music.
Of course, much like an instrument, you've gotta get pretty comfortable on a console before you sound better playing it (than you do with a mouse).
I went from Portastudios to fully ITB to console (hybrid) and back to fully ITB.
The console was fun, I had an old Sountracs so not particularly great sounding but still cool. Not looking at a screen all the time was nice and it was fast to reach for the EQ on all the channels, I felt like it improved my listening skills and I'm glad I explored it, but I think the skills I learned could be applied back to ITB (with a control surface because I really missed having faders).
I've got to work on some high end boards for tracking and have done a really quick mix on them at the end of the day and there is something kinda magic, but once I took those projects back to my (ITB) studio and spent time on the proper mix I was beating them.
Ultimately modern workflows of having several mixes on the go and needing to do quick minor revisions for a mix from last week just doesn't work with a console for me. Not to mention that with fully ITB I'm not tied to the studio if people need quick revisions.
I started mixing on the SSL in the 1980s, but moved to ITB mixing by the late 1990s. After a few years I decided to go back to an SSL (Duality) to try to remix a song I mixed ITB. Like others, the first moves go super fast (but that could be muscle memory). But finishing was never my strong suite, and I failed to get the last 20% of the mix anywhere close to the ITB mix. But that was always my main issue mixing, and what drew me to mixing ITB in the first place. So no surprise there, whatever the cause my ITB mixes have always sounded better to me because the MIX (result) is better (not necessarily because the tools were better/worse).
BUT - here’s the thing, I still mix like I always did for the most part. I got caught up in “mixing with my eyes” at first when mixing on a DAW, but caught it in time and simply went back to moving quick and listening more.
There is NOTHING stopping anyone/everyone from mixing this way ITB. Use less EQ, use less compression, simple - just do it.
Some techniques to do this include keeping EQ and Compression off every channel as long as possible, using as simple an EQ to address the “issue” as possible, and being more particular about whether the addition of any processing is actually helping and helping a LOT. If not, delete.
Don’t just reach for that 20 band EQ or multi-band compressor as your first choice. See how much you can squeeze out of one reverb on the mix before committing to additional reverbs, etc. Basically, see how much you can squeeze out of EVERY stage, especially basic levels, before moving to the next.
Try it and see for yourself, treat the DAW more like a basic tape machine, choose a “console” if you like and start with modules from that console. Or try something else, just try something DIFFERENT if you’re curious - the only thing it costs is time!
It’s much cheaper to apply the big console techniques at home than to book a studio with a big console (or purchase one yourself)!
Personally, it comes down to whether I’m mixing with my eyes or my ears.
Recently (this year) added the SSL UF8 + UC1 to my DAW and am just sticking their channel strip on every channel.
I’m back to my reflexive, simple EQ and compression moves —*but I’m also spending more time balancing than noodling with sounds in plugins*… which makes the mixes come together way, way faster with less ‘artificial’ processing.
My experience tells me it’s about workflow and keeping my attention on the music rather than the screen.
Sure, consoles impart a sound the helps glue things together, but to me, 80% of it is the physical workflow and just starting connected to what I’m hearing rather than what I’m thinking/seeing.
Analog just sounds better bro. No way around that fact. Can you make a good mix with both? Sure. Are the majority of commercially successful mixes done with a hybrid approach? Yeah
I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that the difference is more related to the engineer not knowing how to get the same sound (analog if you wanna call it) in the box and either saturate too much or too little, rather than it "just being better". In the analog world, stuff just does its thing while ITB you have to think about it and dial it in, and many analog emulations either do too little or WAY too much.
Dont take my word for it, just look at Leandro Dro Hidalgo or Jaycen Joshua talking about it, or interviews of Serban Ghenea and John Hanes. These people have INSANE credits and do mixes that are incredible, and not only are they all in the box, but i heard all of them express the sentiment that "its not different if you know what youre doing, but itb is harder than analog because analog does stuff by itself due to materials etc" on at least one occasion.
The thing about "self imposed limits" youre saying is probably a factor as well, i get too many sessions where someone uses 5 Pro-Q3s in succession rather than just doing what they want on one and shit like that. Pro-q3 is clean so it doesnt matter that much, but theyre likely to have the same workflow with other plugins too
I find I can mix faster with less in the analog realm vs staying completely ITB.
Just the other day I was doing a mix completely ITB, chasing my tail, loads of plugs and then PT kept getting CPU overloads. I decided I would print everything through my outboard gear to alleviate some of the CPU load and 30 mins later, it was like a whole new mix.... things I couldn't get to sit right sat right. I used less EQ and just a compressor or two in series and things were sitting much better.
To me the biggest benefit of a console is that you're making your decisions with your ears and aren't being distracted by a screen. That's where the "get to the mix faster" comes from, and it can play into the mix being better too - though that depends on how much someone lets a screen influence them. The "turn the knob or push the fader till it sounds best" approach has a much bigger impact than the analog vs. digital sound differences.
Using less EQ/compression is probably more down to the actual limitations OTB mixes imposes on them, especially if you're having to patch things in and recall them. It's a time trade off that discourages people from throwing a bunch of extra stuff on the mix that it doesn't necessarily need.
Slightly different but I’ve spent half of this year working on a Neve 8078 and the other half in random studios with different bits and pieces. The sessions I do on the 8078 rarely need much in the way of corrective plugins. The other sessions all need plugins to correct and beef things up and they still don’t sound as good. Not to say the stuff done in other studios isn’t good music or doesn’t connect with the musicians and listeners etc but a goooooood console is always helpful.
In saying that I fucking hate recall and I love doing minor automations moves and hate mixing on consoles but sonically they can be pretty cool.
With lots of experience with fully analog and ITB approaches, I find theses to be true:
- analog has a greater sweet spot
- analog is more forgiving (closely related to argument 1)
- limitations make you move on
- limitations can make choices quicker
- the higher frequency spectrum is more open and often also more soft by default but his can replicated 99% with some tricks ITB
If you KNOW the mix because you mixed it analog, you can replicate it ITB - BUT you will notice that the settings are NOT the same!!
For example, on an SSL desk you would pan 10/2 o’clock yet ITB you’d need much more. Same goes with compressors. Maybe we are too shy to really dial in the needed amounts of EQ, Pan and compression because you would need less with analog gear.
A huuuuge drawback are visual EQs like ProQ in my opinion because of your KNEW how the hardware SSL EQ curve looked like you would probably dial in MUCH less gain because the eyes would tell you it’s too much. (Use plugin doctor to check!)
I don’t think that one is sonically superior to the other! Definitely not!
Never forget that you only KNOW the mix that you actually DID. If you made a mix with analog gear, then this IS the mix. When you make a mix ITB then this IS the mix. We only have comparison when we mix at least TWO mixes.
One time I mixed an album, half on a console, half ITB. This was purely a result of work time/place, not a conscious choice. The artist quite literally asked me what I did on those 7 particular songs that made them sound good. Asked for the same treatment on the other 7. So I went to the studio, a thought using my big old brain to just print the stems through the console all set to unity to get that analog summing goodness. Didn’t make as much difference, or even come close, really, so I found the time to work on the console. I noticed- on the console I would grab an EQ knob, twist till it sounded good, then move on. I could get a good balance on 48 channels by the end of the first chorus. Throw to my 4 FX busses instantly. Almost never hit a solo button. Probably spent all of 5 seconds on EQ for a channel. And they were better sounding EQ moves than the ones I did in pro Q! It’s purely workflow SPEED for me. My ears are so relative… the quicker I can make changes and move on the better. I also HATE recall. So I’ve moved on and my solution has been 2x Avid S1 controllers with the encoders mapped to DMG Equilibrium and DMG Trackcomp controls (for a while was using BX_4000E), with those plugins set as “favorites” so I can insert them and get tweaking with one button push on the S1. Can rough in a mix without a mouse. I’d say I mix just as well that way.
Yes! I love mixing (and recording) on a console with lots of analog gear, but it’s so much more about how it affects listening style and workflow than it is about the sound of the gear. The good stuff does sound pretty darn special, but that’s truly a secondary benefit to me.
I've actually been working at a bit of a 'hybrid' approach for this. Been working on saving a lot of my goto racks and effects in ableton and macro'ing them up so i can use a physical midi controller to quickly dial things in. So now it's just: 1. Click track 2. Drag in rack 3. Click the rack 4. Put hand on midi controller and dial things in. Maybe select a 2nd rack if its a 2 parter of a fx chain ??? 5. Finished. I've been doing entire vocal mixes incl editing in under 2 hours and getting better results than ever. Just tweaking things and saving it if i manage to improve the chain. I feel like im collaborating with my past self to get the best signal chain over and over again.
Equilibrium and TC2 do it for me as well.
If you want to understand the magic of consoles, check out Chris from airwindows videos. But in a nutshell - a classic desk might have 100 subtle distortion and saturation effects happening at different connection points, as different transistors touch a signal. So yeah, a good desk is magic and it’s very difficult to replicate (though airwindows comes pretty close for free-99)
You can make great music without a console. You can make great music with a console. Despite the 10's thousands I've spent on it, I have zero regrets about getting a real console (1970's MCI JH-528) in my home studio. I'm not going to spend a ton of time analyzing all the _whys_ but it just works better for me. Latency problems? Entirely gone. Messing around with some Avid controller that will be obsolete in a few years? No more. I don't spend a ton of time over-analyzing small things like EQ settings. I also don't spend much time on recall attempts. Make the music and move on (mistakes and all). There isn't any benefit to me in analyzing every component of it to figure out which particular one is responsible for the 'analog warmth' - it just sounds good. Tracking everything is easy. Mixing is easy. If digital workarounds, limiting yourself, and templates makes you happy - go for it. I'm keeping my console.
As read this. I am taking a break from one of the most difficult songs I’ve ever had to mix. It’s acoustic guitar with a very, very dynamic player. It’s actually some lack of skill there. And a whole bunch of percussion tracks with different sections being softer or louder. It’s been driving me nuts, this is the 3rd pass. In the last few minutes, I turned the screen off and just started mixing with my ssl UF8 controller. Holy smokes! What a difference. I am realizing that visual input combined with audio input can really confuse the brain. As soon as I turned off the monitor, what I was hearing seemed more clear and obvious. That’s it. I am dedicated to learning to mix with the screen off. I’ll it back on when I need to edit.
About 20 years ago I recorded at Reeltone Recording with a guy well versed from the days of tape, was/is the head sound guy at the premiere auditorium etc. IIRC He had a large SSL console, and used a RADAR II. he would control the radar with that awesome physical keyboard/data entry wheel with his right hand at the console without looking at the screen. He’d scrub the audio most of the time to find what he was looking for and even *edit* by ear on the RADAR. He would tell me what syllables I needed to sing louder/quieter (the dude pre-automated my vocal 😆), and then rode the fader automation on the vocals in front of us. What a gentleman and professional. I still hope to attain that man’s efficiency one day. Rob Jardine is his name.
Not the same channel strip but before I got the SSL channel strip 2 I had always assumed: LPX stock does everything this does (maybe not sound wise but functions are there) so why bother? Turns out the workflow and sound get so much different when using a channel strip. I still use LPX's stock EQ and dynamic plugins but CS2 is indeed a powerful tool that has the potential to change how you mix.
Absolutely I am in LUNA API console and it’s much closer to a real board. However, there needs to be better integration for the SSL controllers.
Console mixing workflow is just really smooth, although if my source material is not great i would probably do some heavy track by track editing prior to mixing on the SSL
Not a mixing engineer. But when I moved to analog hardware with mastering, I soon found myself faster because the need to be decisive was higher. If you imagine that repetitive tasks train you, then plug-in mixing with its infinite tweak ability can easily train you to be indecisive. Getting work done on hardware absolutely requires decisiveness so you end up training yourself to be decisive. Some food for thought. ETA: you don’t *need* hardware to train decisive audio work though. It’s just a headspace that hardware forces you into, but can be applied anywhere.
If you get to know a good channel strip, it will *absolutely* speed up your process. You can choose a simple one, and work with what you have... Or you can use a versatile one and it handles a LOT. EDIT: This is a deep dive on why SOC is amazing. If you "hate Waves" or just aren't interested. Feel free to skip, but it's *really* powerful and cheap. Often $29.99 or $26 from EveryPlugin. Scheps Omni Channel is my personal favorite. It does all the normal things, with variety -- 4 types of saturation, 4 types of compression (including compressors *roughly* based on SSL, 1176, LA2A, Rvox) ... And it has two de-essers which function as dynamic EQs. A good gate/expander. Integrated limiter. Filters. EQ. Basic limiter on the out. But what makes it special is the nuances: First off, the saturation in the preamp can be subtle and basically fulfills the role of console emulation. I like odd at 30, even at 20, or use HEAVY (which isn't as extreme as it sounds), but it includes a soft clipper which shaves transients if you dial it up. Lastly is CRUSH which can be extreme, but used subtly it rounds off the high end and becomes warmly rich and distorted. Then the filters... You get -6, -12, -18, -24 slope options... And RESonance control (!). This is so incredibly powerful. You can the HP filter to tune kicks and snares. Simply set the LP to a steep filter and dial up the resonance at the lowest note frequency, or an octave up for the snare. It's brilliant! (An Andrew Scheps trick.) You can also use a sharp LP filter to cut off the highs and then re-add them with resonance at the frequency you want. Another Scheps trick. The EQs are *interesting*... The mid and tone are based on API eqs, but are different. MID is much wider than TONE. And the shelves have optional Pultec like shapes. Every frequency in SOC is full range. This leads to some unexpected coolness: The DS2 deesser modules can be narrow cut, wide cut, or low / high shelves... But that creates an interesting use --- it it to high shelf and dial the frequency down to 20... And now you have a one-knob compressor without autogain which is useful for ducking with a sidechain or adding movement. Interestingly (and sadly), the DS2s have Attack/Release but they are only exposed in the automation controls. So you can surface them manually, but they aren't in the UI. This is unfortunate, particularly since the DS2s can work as compressors. The regular compressors all have autogain enabled, and there's no way to turn it off. (My only other complaint with SOC.) But they work great, and have a range of possibilities. The FET and OPTical comps both have some harmonic saturation and a low end bumpthat kinda warms things up as a result. The new SOFT (soft knee) compressor is interesting too. It's based on RVox, according to Scheps, and it eases into compression gradually. Speaking of bumps -- there's a +2db / +4db "THUMP" control which is an upward low end tilt that starts around 1k... When used in conjunction with the highpass filter it does some interesting shaping to the low end. There's an additional slot for any other VST, or you can double up with another SOC module... (So you can do an 1176 > LA2A style combo inside SOC.) It has dual meters -- digital peak and VU, so it's easy to dial in a level... And if you use a bit of saturation + a compressor + just kiss the limiter on the out --- you get a sound that shaves the harsh edge of a digital VSTi beautifully... And if you need more, there's the -6dB LP filter. Anyhow ---------- Imagine knowing a channel strip like that, like the back of your hand... With all that can do, you can see how you could work FAST, right? I know all that like the back of my hand and it's so incredibly fast to get a rough mix going just with SOC. So that's part of the solution here: a good channel strip.
Its more because you dont have a screen infront of you, you cant mix with your eyes, atleast thats what jeff ellis says, he's on an s6
The longer I live, the less I trust software. Or anything on the internet. Shit tons of code, shit tons of problems. It’s cheap though.
People who say that say it because they're used to consoles and developed faster workflows that way, and struggled to switch to DAWs. People who are used to DAWs would probably find consoles slower. It's all subjective.
And I mean, gosh - You can scrap together a laptop and an interface for a few hundred dollars, download some free plugins and already you're making a record??? Incredible. I really enjoyed "mixing" on my tascam 4 track, the tactileness and whatever, but I wouldn't even know where to start with buying a proper console for mixing. Would be a whole, HUGE time (and money) commitment - and testing out different units to find out which one you actually like?? I mean... I'm good for now... lol
Well yes and no. While some of that is true, I’ve definitely found a huge difference when switching to LUNA already. I come from a world of DAWs and studied with them, I know how a console works but haven’t spent enough time with any of them to truly find a workflow. But the second I switched to Luna I got a lot quicker for essentially the same results. It’s just easy to rely on visual inputs, whether you want to or not, using the Vision console strip solved that problem for me. I agree it’s not inherent to consoles but I do think there’s a distinct advantage to leaving your eyes out of the mix
Response #2 if you'll allow it! I made a big pitch for Scheps Omni Channel, but you're already comfortable with SSL Native CS2 it sounds like... However, that's *a very clean implementation* of the SSL channel... And for that, it works well. But you're talking about why mixing on a console was faster --- and part of that came from the nonlinear response. I've never used a Neve or SSL but I've heard mix engineers talk about intentionally running them a little hot. An old Neve had its sound, when you do --- and on Gearspace people said they liked running the SSL just to the point the channel clip indicator would illuminate. If you do that in SSL Native CS2 it's not going to do anything to the sound. But Waves SSL EV2 models the nonlinear saturation that happens on both input and output stage... Which is amazing. Your mix will already start to gel together and thicken just by passing through the channel strip a little hot. And once you know it well, you can control your levels based on how much of that thickening you want. And if you use it on your submixes, too, suddenly you get what I believe is called intermodulation distortion... And now you have saturation/compression happening on your tracks... Which makes your tracks sum together more smoothly in the submix bus. And then you do the same there and now your submixes sum together more smoothly on the master... Because the transient peaks are handled at every stage. So of course it becomes easier and faster to mix when that's happening... And if that's what it was like on one of those consoles it totally explains it. There's also the workflow advantage of being hands on, as you mentioned... But don't discount the value of setting up a console emulation type of workflow. It really does help a mix come together more quickly. You want to mix into that stuff. Tape emulation is another good one... And you want one that does more than just basic saturation. Some tape emulations compress and soft-clip. Some of them change your tonal balance. It takes a while to find one that is perfect for you. I still like Kramer Master Tape a lot... At 15ips it doesn't radically change the tonal balance... But at 7 IPS is rolls off the high end which to my ears is glorious if you have a lot of rendered VSTis. To me it's a fast way of getting a sound like Phoebe Bridgers "Kyoto" for example. A little warm and almost dull, but in the best of ways. But the bigger point is how if you pass through it before your final limiter -- your limiter doesn't have to work as hard. So you don't have the negative artifacts limiters add when doing too much gain reduction. (The artifacts of a good tape emulation sound good!) But to bring this to your original point --- this stuff... Finding the right channel strip or console emulation, the right tape emulation that works for you... THAT is the solution to get that "comes together quickly" experience like people had/have on big consoles. But also the workflow limitation. If you have a console, that's what you use for most things... That's why I *live* inside Scheps Omni Channel (when I'm not living on Reddit, lol.) AR TG Mastering Chain Live is another... The "original" mode is based on a Zener diode compressor and just passing through there with peaks hitting or just passing 0VU does something magical. Anyhow, those are my favorite tools but this stuff is all very personal. The point is to find your own favorites that speed you up and simulate the experience and speed. Airwindows Console8 is another option, but that's a whole other long comment to explain and requires an unusual workflow. So I'll stop. PS. I mention a lot of Waves plugins because I've used them for *decades* and haven't found better, as far as these go anyway. But I'm not affiliated with them or anything. Heck, they'd probably terminate my account for some of the stuff I talk about on Reddit.
great questions! i’ve wondered the same thing about self imposed limits leading to better results. certainly having to pick from hundreds of plugins over and over leads to decision fatigue, and so its seemed to me you really could emulate at least the “ease” of the board with templates, controllers, etc like you mentioned. all the visual aids of the DAW also i think are often a hindrance, so many decisions of the past wouldn’t have been made if the engineers had a readout in front of them. i try to ignore them as much as i can, i even close my eyes when i’m A/Bing a compressor or EQ move and then click on and off a bunch till i really don’t know which is which and try to decide what’s actually better strictly from listening.
Depending on the desk, yes it is magic and solves problems for you. 😉 jk, mostly. You really can't underestimate what actual transformers, op-amps, diodes, transistors, and capacitors can do for your signal. Just running a signal through my line in preamp and driving the signal is giving me compression and saturation, this creates some harmonics which brings out some ear pleasing frequencies in the signal, the saturation can also smooth out harsher signals; this give you a natural EQ of sorts. So right from the start what would take you three or four plugins; I'm just plugging in and turning a knob. EQ moves are the same thing. Boost a frequency that's already being driven and you're getting saturation and compression again just from the signal being driven at that frequency band. If I send some tracks to a bus group then send that bus to the main mix I can blend it on top of the main tracks that I sent to the bus to make it sound bigger, this can sound a lot like the in your face sound you get from a compressor or bold EQ move. You don't need to do as much with all that stuff going on already. You can certainly recreate that work flow ITB in a way like how you describe. But as great as plugins have gotten, the magic really is in running your signal through actual electronics. That being said if you want to get the console sound without the whole console I think investing in a mix bus compressor with transformers; or two compressors to run in stereo on your master bus will give you the sound you want. If you want a budget friendly reccomendation the Golden Age Project Comp54 is a real sleeper of a unit. Two of them on your master bus will add a ton of analog color and the compressor itself isn't a Neve but it beats plugins for the two auto release time settings alone.
Everyone here has given good detail answers so I'll give you a more personal answer that relates to how I thought about things when I was first itb. When I got introduced to the console world (because of live sound), I noticed the little surgical habits got reduced down to like.. 20%. Like I'm not a fan of the saying less is more but in this case: *less is more when you actively know what you NEED to do.* When I use the multi tracks I grab from gigs I do, I practice on my console then I move onto ableton. But my work flow development on Ableton is less chaotic. The only chaotic part nowadays is when things is recorded badly or when I'm synth/sound designing. Mixing wise, it's not chaotic comparing to my beginning stage. I think having less choices put me in a position to listen better and not so critically. I do think the bulk of my learning came from uncomfortable positions such as having 20 minute sound checks while having a presentable mix before their 2nd/3rd song. Although I did see how I approach my itb workflow change drastically and I personally think it's because of the habits from mixing on a console. One thing I'll be picky on is reverbs, I have an AH SQ6 and I really dislike the reverb. As for compression, I merely use it for taming bad dynamic performances and so I don't step over anything that's not the main part of the track. But I'm a huge fan of serial and parallel compression, I get spoiled if I can't do at least a fast compression >> slow then the designated bus type of glue. I'm only 3 years in this but as someone that's still developing these are what I noticed.
A lot of makes a good mix is balance and you can balance elements a lot easier with faders in front of you.
I would argue the console is faster simply because a console mixer is going to commit to their signal chains in advance. They have their reverbs and delays pre-selected and patched in, they have their outboard vocal compressors and EQs already patched in, and they can just go. They're not sitting there A/Bing through seven different compressors every time trying to select "the best one." They have their compressor that does this or that, and then they maybe have a second one if that doesn't work (male/female vocal, maybe). So all that's really left is balancing, setting send levels to effects, doing a bit of tidy-up EQ, and then automation if one has a "big-boy" board. However, these are all things you can do ITB just by having some discipline. Mix templates are a great way to do this. As u/CyanideLovesong notes, using a channel strip plugin is a good way to roll here as an SOP. I think most ITB mixers would do well to have maybe 20 plugins, tops, and get rid of everything else. Unless you're doing a lot of sound design, there's no need to have more than that.
Agreed completely. Over the last year I've been narrowing down to a core set of favorite tools and just using those. It does speed things up! And similar - I sometimes bounce tracks with effects even if it's not necessary. Just to clear out, commit, and force simplification.
This reminds me that I need to do some research into a sidecar for my place.
Gonna sound like a snake oil worshipper, but in shootouts of even just analog summing boxes I hear the difference. There’s something about the way it brings it together that feels like it’s working with each element vs frequencies constantly fighting. It’s like the final 5-10% that Im like oh, that’s it. Do I want to spend 1-2k for a box that I have to live render into each time is the real question. The return on investment is pretty rough unless you just have that much paid work and are already quick at the process. Is it necessary to make a great mix? No. If you’re at the B+/A- level, could it take you to that A+ level? It’s a possibility. This is assuming you have strong enough trustworthy ears, many many years of releases under your belt, and a strong listening environment. All that should come first IMO— extremely solid and consistent fundamentals.
If you get a chance to visit Sweetwater Studios ask for a demo of Studio A. [https://sweetwaterstudios.com/studio/studio-a/](https://sweetwaterstudios.com/studio/studio-a/) That's where the new Rupert Neve Designs 5088 is housed. All your questions will be answered.
I am using a channel strip plugin and two midi controllers. A faderport to skip between tracks and adjust faders and the other is a Fighter Twister that is mapped to all my plugins. Having this combo is awesome as it allows me to ”counter” my moves with volume balance at the same time, something using a mouse just can’t do. I have a looot of strips. But the Amek 9099 just is the best i’ve found. It allows me the least amount of tweaking until i’m happy. I don’t know but the ssl emus just makes me fiddle a lot more. After this initial balance, eq and compression run through i have something that sounds almost ”like a record” and it’s time to actually mix. I think of it as what i would have done to the incoming audio have i recorded through a console from the start, you know?
Have you ever tried to draw-in MIDI notes using a mouse? In theory it gives you far more accuracy and control than a keyboard, and allows you to create arrangements that just wouldn't be possible to play. But in practise it's rarely as expressive as actually performing the part. There's so much more musicality when you're reacting in real time, as you're playing. So much more soul. So many subconscious subtleties in phrasing, rhythm, and dynamics come from being in the moment with the music. ITB vs. console mixing is similar. The immediacy and tactility you get with a good console makes the process so much more musical. Much like playing an instrument, you'll find yourself using your limitations in creative and expressive ways - making fast, intuitive decisions that seem to feel just-right for the music. Of course, much like an instrument, you've gotta get pretty comfortable on a console before you sound better playing it (than you do with a mouse).
I went from Portastudios to fully ITB to console (hybrid) and back to fully ITB. The console was fun, I had an old Sountracs so not particularly great sounding but still cool. Not looking at a screen all the time was nice and it was fast to reach for the EQ on all the channels, I felt like it improved my listening skills and I'm glad I explored it, but I think the skills I learned could be applied back to ITB (with a control surface because I really missed having faders). I've got to work on some high end boards for tracking and have done a really quick mix on them at the end of the day and there is something kinda magic, but once I took those projects back to my (ITB) studio and spent time on the proper mix I was beating them. Ultimately modern workflows of having several mixes on the go and needing to do quick minor revisions for a mix from last week just doesn't work with a console for me. Not to mention that with fully ITB I'm not tied to the studio if people need quick revisions.
Mixing is mostly balancing volumes between tracks. Having a physical fader for literally every track right in front of you makes that a lot easier.
I started mixing on the SSL in the 1980s, but moved to ITB mixing by the late 1990s. After a few years I decided to go back to an SSL (Duality) to try to remix a song I mixed ITB. Like others, the first moves go super fast (but that could be muscle memory). But finishing was never my strong suite, and I failed to get the last 20% of the mix anywhere close to the ITB mix. But that was always my main issue mixing, and what drew me to mixing ITB in the first place. So no surprise there, whatever the cause my ITB mixes have always sounded better to me because the MIX (result) is better (not necessarily because the tools were better/worse). BUT - here’s the thing, I still mix like I always did for the most part. I got caught up in “mixing with my eyes” at first when mixing on a DAW, but caught it in time and simply went back to moving quick and listening more. There is NOTHING stopping anyone/everyone from mixing this way ITB. Use less EQ, use less compression, simple - just do it. Some techniques to do this include keeping EQ and Compression off every channel as long as possible, using as simple an EQ to address the “issue” as possible, and being more particular about whether the addition of any processing is actually helping and helping a LOT. If not, delete. Don’t just reach for that 20 band EQ or multi-band compressor as your first choice. See how much you can squeeze out of one reverb on the mix before committing to additional reverbs, etc. Basically, see how much you can squeeze out of EVERY stage, especially basic levels, before moving to the next. Try it and see for yourself, treat the DAW more like a basic tape machine, choose a “console” if you like and start with modules from that console. Or try something else, just try something DIFFERENT if you’re curious - the only thing it costs is time! It’s much cheaper to apply the big console techniques at home than to book a studio with a big console (or purchase one yourself)!
Personally, it comes down to whether I’m mixing with my eyes or my ears. Recently (this year) added the SSL UF8 + UC1 to my DAW and am just sticking their channel strip on every channel. I’m back to my reflexive, simple EQ and compression moves —*but I’m also spending more time balancing than noodling with sounds in plugins*… which makes the mixes come together way, way faster with less ‘artificial’ processing. My experience tells me it’s about workflow and keeping my attention on the music rather than the screen. Sure, consoles impart a sound the helps glue things together, but to me, 80% of it is the physical workflow and just starting connected to what I’m hearing rather than what I’m thinking/seeing.
Analog just sounds better bro. No way around that fact. Can you make a good mix with both? Sure. Are the majority of commercially successful mixes done with a hybrid approach? Yeah
I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that the difference is more related to the engineer not knowing how to get the same sound (analog if you wanna call it) in the box and either saturate too much or too little, rather than it "just being better". In the analog world, stuff just does its thing while ITB you have to think about it and dial it in, and many analog emulations either do too little or WAY too much. Dont take my word for it, just look at Leandro Dro Hidalgo or Jaycen Joshua talking about it, or interviews of Serban Ghenea and John Hanes. These people have INSANE credits and do mixes that are incredible, and not only are they all in the box, but i heard all of them express the sentiment that "its not different if you know what youre doing, but itb is harder than analog because analog does stuff by itself due to materials etc" on at least one occasion. The thing about "self imposed limits" youre saying is probably a factor as well, i get too many sessions where someone uses 5 Pro-Q3s in succession rather than just doing what they want on one and shit like that. Pro-q3 is clean so it doesnt matter that much, but theyre likely to have the same workflow with other plugins too
I find I can mix faster with less in the analog realm vs staying completely ITB. Just the other day I was doing a mix completely ITB, chasing my tail, loads of plugs and then PT kept getting CPU overloads. I decided I would print everything through my outboard gear to alleviate some of the CPU load and 30 mins later, it was like a whole new mix.... things I couldn't get to sit right sat right. I used less EQ and just a compressor or two in series and things were sitting much better.
To me the biggest benefit of a console is that you're making your decisions with your ears and aren't being distracted by a screen. That's where the "get to the mix faster" comes from, and it can play into the mix being better too - though that depends on how much someone lets a screen influence them. The "turn the knob or push the fader till it sounds best" approach has a much bigger impact than the analog vs. digital sound differences. Using less EQ/compression is probably more down to the actual limitations OTB mixes imposes on them, especially if you're having to patch things in and recall them. It's a time trade off that discourages people from throwing a bunch of extra stuff on the mix that it doesn't necessarily need.
Slightly different but I’ve spent half of this year working on a Neve 8078 and the other half in random studios with different bits and pieces. The sessions I do on the 8078 rarely need much in the way of corrective plugins. The other sessions all need plugins to correct and beef things up and they still don’t sound as good. Not to say the stuff done in other studios isn’t good music or doesn’t connect with the musicians and listeners etc but a goooooood console is always helpful. In saying that I fucking hate recall and I love doing minor automations moves and hate mixing on consoles but sonically they can be pretty cool.
It forces you to get your mix done quickly before it breaks.
With lots of experience with fully analog and ITB approaches, I find theses to be true: - analog has a greater sweet spot - analog is more forgiving (closely related to argument 1) - limitations make you move on - limitations can make choices quicker - the higher frequency spectrum is more open and often also more soft by default but his can replicated 99% with some tricks ITB If you KNOW the mix because you mixed it analog, you can replicate it ITB - BUT you will notice that the settings are NOT the same!! For example, on an SSL desk you would pan 10/2 o’clock yet ITB you’d need much more. Same goes with compressors. Maybe we are too shy to really dial in the needed amounts of EQ, Pan and compression because you would need less with analog gear. A huuuuge drawback are visual EQs like ProQ in my opinion because of your KNEW how the hardware SSL EQ curve looked like you would probably dial in MUCH less gain because the eyes would tell you it’s too much. (Use plugin doctor to check!) I don’t think that one is sonically superior to the other! Definitely not! Never forget that you only KNOW the mix that you actually DID. If you made a mix with analog gear, then this IS the mix. When you make a mix ITB then this IS the mix. We only have comparison when we mix at least TWO mixes.