DAW Console vs Real Console

[doncolga]

So for those of you who have used real consoles, other than immediate access to all the important knobs, what are some other practical differences between a real console and other daw consoles, in terms of workflow, or anything else? Is the DAW generation missing out on something by not having experienced both platforms?

[Sthauge]

So for those of you who have used real consoles, other than immediate access to all the important knobs, what are some other practical differences between a real console and other daw consoles, in terms of workflow, or anything else? Is the DAW generation missing out on something by not having experienced both platforms?

On a real analog console you can see all knops settings without doing any action. Outboard gear is also there with a twist of your head. Thats mean you can take action in a split of a second, important if your doing FOH. As I tell teenagers when learning them about mixing(FOH), feedback should never happen. You should hear a feedback building up and stop it before the audience hear it. Moving from adjusting AUX 5 SEND on channel 43 to adjusting LOW EQ on channel 3 takes the time that's needed to move your arm(without any need to press a button or two to get to the display/bank/layer with the correct knob). That also mean you most of the time work in context with the full mix, though you have PFL/AFL if needed.

Today most DAWs urge you to play the "Plugin seek and hide" game. This mean that mixing takes a lot more time than on a analog console.

Another thing these days DAW user are asking about are "the correct and exact number" for eg. the freq on a filter knob. Ref all the threads about this topic in this forum. On an analog console you get only the information printed around the knobs on the channels/busses, like in Mixbus/Mixbus32C. That means you have no other options than to use your ears and listen the get response you are seeking.

To sum up:

• Oversight
  
• Quick action
  
• Most work in context
  
• Mixing with your eras
  

[doncolga]

That’s a great point and comparison with live FOH. I’ve gigged with an iPad controlled mixer for a few years. At first I was excited about it, but it felt great to go back to a analog mixer with instant access to everything.

It’s easy to imagine that if I had started out with a real console, there would have been a lot to not like about typical DAW consoles. That’s really interesting.

[JamieLang]

The first thing I think of is that with LegoDAWs having functionally no limits....I think that people have created inefficient ways to do things because "they can"....and should you drop them onto an analog desk with racks of whatever typical outboard, they would have no idea how to produce the sounds in their heads.

Then I think that not actually hearing your analog input has completely changed the conversation about what "fidelity" means. Like--I can tell you nine way to sunday that 24/96 IS more like your analog input than 24/48. It's not really debated....BUT....whether it sounds "better" is not the discussion, because most people never even HEAR the analog feed. So, if they switch it to 96, and get the immediate impression "I dunno--sounds give or take the same"....they disregard the difference as "not worth it"--whatever "it" is....anyway--there was always a philosophical school that the control room monitored off the latent repro heads so that the engineer could hear the sound "post tape"--while the performer got the live feed....so, it's not completely new because of the DAW--but, I think the fact that there's no analog feed to even BE heard has changed that discussion a lot. The philosophy of the report head (or now post ADC) conversion is the assumption that it WILL audibly change the signal--so you want to hear those changes and compensate for them. Tape did. Single rate digital did differently. I'm not sure I'd say that a good 24/88+ ADC does. Certainly the functional scale has changed.

But, I'd also point to this idea that people feel like they want to learn "mixing"....before tracking is also an issue. Because there's just this one "UI" that records, edits, mixes, masters, and sometimes even provides instrumental content for a creation, it's kind of all gelling into "mixing" being everything north of "I've got an idea that goes something like this" and posting to Soundcloud. While that's not "analog console vs DAW" exactly....it's something I see that DAW tech is facilitating in the way of change to the process.

[MikeT]

There are lots of differences, some favor one some favor the other.

Its very rare to run into a analog mixer in any venue these days. Digital or hybrid systems are now the norm.

I really don't like working with the no control surface version which compares somewhat with a DAW. To me it changes ones focus from listening to looking. Plus it makes it pretty hard to make adjustments on the fly.

I just added a faderport 16 to my DAW. The workflow is like a live show. Setup and sound check with a mouse and looking (importing, polarity, cutting all areas you don't need, gain staging, choosing routing/buss layout etc in the DAW) to a rough mix. Then control surface to final mix- listening.

The one thing that I have trouble with is committing in a DAW. Probably fiddle way too much. No time for that live.

Mike