@Coquet-Shack the fact that many top producers are admittingly switching from big consoles to ‘in the box’ for ease and convinience strengthens your point too.
Big rigs are more for big artists to see and think ‘wow, look at all this gear…he must be a top producer to be able to afford and use all this’
(Can of worms opened , sorry)
[quote=“Coquet-Shack, post:131, topic:322”]
That’s the claim that’s alway puzzled me. WHAT? I mean, WHAT does the £250k job do that the ITB doesn’t.I truly want to know.Sure, it’ll require a learning curve to get to know how to operate it, but oince you’re there, what is it that THAT mixer can do better? [/quote]
Fair question. I realize this thread has gotten messy, so its understandable if no one goes through and re-reads everything. I’ll try and keep the restatement short and concise. The big guy’s don’t compete on sound quality. They compete on project capacity and speed. Bigger consoles allow multiple machines, multiple operators, and different types of data to sync to a central nucleus of control.
Below is the Harrison console at Sony Pictures.
Take a look at how the 3 mix stations are set up. Multiple DAWs spread across six or seven computers, all feeding the console. (The A and C mix studios at Disney use the Soundmaster Ion Machine Control system to keep everything together). No one person can manage this kind of job with a single DAW and a mouse, because of the amount data and speed operators need to mix it at is insane.
This is my console…its the System 5.
It can scale to over 1000 channels that any combination of digital and analog. It has onboard DSP which means it has a computer independent of the DAW, yet it can control every feature within a DAW. All mixers have a 2 bus (stereo), and some like an SSL 9000 series have a surround bus (dolby 7.1). The Harrisons and the Avids have 64 channels on the master outputs. They have fully automated recall even for the analog side (including gain staging, aux sends and routing). Most common mixers have 6 or 8 sends and returns. These have 256 sends and returns that can routed with a mouse click, eliminating the need to ever touch a patchbay. The System 5b models like NASA, Oprah, and Jay Leno used (I own Jay’s old one) have a redundant emergency changeover systems. Another thing they do that DAW/itb can’t is tie directly into a multi-user media server to access and edit files stored on an enterprise network without having to move a single folder to a local drive. Avids current enterprise storage system is called the Nexus…the older generation was the Isis.
If you were curious, those are a few things that are a little different than a normal mixer. It’s a good question to ask! 
Gotta say, I think this is where it’s all headed too. I mean, digital desks are just contollers for computers. You could just as easily control them through a touch screen or a keyboard and mouse. The manufacturers have made them look like desks for marketing purposes, to ‘compete’ with analogue desks. But peole aren’t idiots. I’ve worked with enough analogue desks to know that digital recording and mixing is superior on every level. Soon the only people left using analogue desks will be the same type of people who buy vinyl records.
That is completely completely false.
That is completely false.
The desks mix multiple DANTE and MADI feeds from multiple machines on their own DSP. Those DSP cores function completely independently of the DAW. A Euconized Avid console can double as a DAW controller though.
And that would all still work perfectly even if all digital processing was removed from the operation, right?
[quote=“Arber87, post:138, topic:322, full:true”]
We get it Jonathan, you’re kind of an important person because you’ve invested. [/quote]
Hang on man… @Coquet-Shack asked an honest question, and I tried to answer it. That’s all.
[quote]
He just wanted his website to be welcoming to the new amateurs. [/quote]
So do I !! [quote] Boz gets it, after a certain point it becomes a matter of efficiency than a matter of quality. You are efficient, that’s very good for you and your stomach, but let amateurs be amateurs. Don’t take their enthusiasm away.
[/quote] ??? I know @bozmillar got it… but @Coquet-Shack asked the same question so I twice. So I answered it again because this thread got really convoluted and I assumed Shack had skipped past the previous post.
Which when you break it down all that is just networking and connectivity jonathan.
It does t mean at all that the mixing or tracking process is in any way superior to that of an in the box set up.
'Indie recording depot’
As inindipendant recording, as in not a majot corporate high end av chat room.
I appreciate your views and experience @Jonathan but if these threads continue to be like this all the time then i’m outta here.
No offence meant.
Peace
Yeah just ignore me, i’m cranky as hell as i’m sat in the doctors waiting room with tonsillitis.
Apologies @Jonathan just ignore me
Still doesn’t change the fact that in the box is just as good in a recording and mixing studio than any large console.
I apologize for my tone in that last response…that was unnecessary and I changed it.
To answer the question no, it wouldn’t work the same. We use what are called on-stage and off-stage stations. Onstage are the crew behind the mixer, and off stage guys are behind the DAWs that are feeding the mixer. Even if the off-stage stations could manage to get their relative levels set, they have no way of merging everything together to print the mix. You know how you can print a mix in mono, or stereo, or 5.1 surround which would use 6 master bus channels? You need to somehow get to 64 channels. You can’t print a mix with 64 master bus channels from a bus in PT. PT stops you at 16 master busses, allowing you to do a dolby 15.1 mix. Its called a dolby ‘local’ mix which is a 9.1 surround + 3 side, 1 back, and 2 top per side. So to print the mix, you have to send it to the mixer first, because the DAW just can’t.
Aside from object panning, another thing you lose in the box is digital summing. This is an ~entirely foreign~ concept to a music guy. Don’t think summing in the sense of a Dangerous or Toft summing mixer like in audio. Digital summing is the way that an Atmos HD mix, collapses into a Atmos local mix, which collapses to a 9.1, then a 7.1, then a 5.1 then down to a stereo mix. That way everything that’s mixed on the maximum 64 independent reference monitors for Imax theaters is consistent when played on a pair of cheap headphones in an airplane or on youtube.
Awww man. Its all good. I totally understand. If I had tonsillitis I’d be pretty grouchy myself !! Get well soon friend.
Precisely. That’s because your equipment consists of physical equipment that is controlling digital operations. Otherwise known as controllers.
*blah’s technically mine
WOW. Sorry I caused a problem. @Jonathan is right. I skipped past previous posts.
I hear what you say, JK, and I read what these rigs do with interest. But the bottom line is this: Most producers run on mixes with fewer than 80 tracks, so why the NEED for something that can handle 1,000.
Serious question.
My brain struggles with mixing when I go beyond about 20 tracks.
Hey man, that’s unfair. FLAGGED.
Thanks JK. Shit. All I have to do is post and people start screaming at me. That’s informative.
If Foley is involved I could easily imagine that number of tracks for a full length Hollywood movie.
A music guy might not. I do believe a lot of music producers have move in the box and are still very successful. I guess the important lesson to take is that one ought not to spend big because a named engineer does. Let the legit needs drive the spending, not the market hype! 
But hey…we’re preaching to the choir now! lol
sounds awesome