ITB vs OTB

....can of worms....

I'm not sure why it didn't show up - there haven't been so many threads but the ones we've had have been pretty exhaustive.  However, I'll lead off.

ITB is fine.  I'm not really sure of the benefits of OTB (especially off track betting!) unless you have really nice analog and outboard. 

Sonar's 64 bit engine gives you an excellent, clean WYHIWYG mix engine.  Why muck it up w/ lessor electronics.

However, if you happen to have an SSL mix bus laying around the house, I suggest you dust it off.  Or better yet, the whole console.  Or a clean summer with lots of nice analog outboard that you can run stems (or channels) through.  All the little bits of good electronics inside them can make your music sound more like we've become expected to hear professional music sound like.

Note, the above pp doesn't apply to a salvaged live rig, or, IMHO, even a middle of the road mixer w/o having nice outboard.  The software effects in Sonar are probably better, unless you just like the sound of your choosen one.  Where software still doesn't match high-end analog is modeling all the little electronic interactions being driven at differnet rates w/in the analog world.  Software is getting better, even good, but not better.  Again, my opinion.  But that is what the recording process is about - finding a methodology that works for you - your sound.  Unfortunately, I can't afford all the outboard toys I'd like, but make due w/ a top-of-the-line channel strip going in and a very good analog stereo channel mix going out.

@

I've known and enjoyed time with members of the IBTC (Inside Box Technical Committee) as well as some who did not meet the membership requirements. I have fond memories for both...

Gearslutz is the place for this sort of information.

But tread carefully over there, they get a bit heated.

You think this place is bad...........

amiller


I read a couple of short threads on the topic that made me curious.  I don't know much about the issues regarding both ITB and OTB and thought I'd post here to find out more on the subject.  From what I've read, the OTB camp seems to be pretty passionate about that method.  The ITB guys seem to be defending ITB but concede that OTB "may" produce better sonic results.

You're probably dead on with that...That's a pretty safe assumption to make.  


Either method will give pretty good results,  but ultimately, it comes back to the person in the chair....and what they know. 


Put an amateur in a $10 million dollar studio and it will still sound like an amateur production .... give a professional a laptop and a few mics and you'll have a top quality production. 

If anyone's interested, (as an advanced warning), I'm refurbing my AC15 and when it's done I'll be recording three versions of the same song using..
1. My real AC15 and real mics
2. Line6 combo in AC30 mode with real mics
3. AC30 from Guitar Rig, totaly ITB.

I intend posting them as a blind sampler to see which one(s) folk prefer...

Should be interesting.

FastBikerBoy


I wonder how many could actually tell in a blindfold test whether a piece of music has been mixed ITB or OTB. Very few I'd suggest............

I read one thread on the SOS website that had a link to a blind listening test.  I couldn't find the test...I guess it's been taken down, however, most of the folks that took the test and commented said they were easily able to pick out the ITB from the OTB.  Interestingly, they didn't pass judgement on either ... only that the could tell one from the other.

People who have not mixed extensively on both, should probably not comment.

I have so I will.

Pros of OTB:
Reverbs layer better behind the the source.
External Compression sounds more interesting.
Wider & Deeper apparent imaging.
Analog processing on the master buss, sounds more authentic (to me).

Pros of ITB:
Faster
Can try more options in a shorter amount of time with regard to plug ins.
Automation is a dream.
Some plugins, have no real world counterpart so I am going out on a limb to say there are more experimental & innovative things happening with plugs ins than hardware.

Cons of OTB:
Cost of hardware and cables
Setting external hardware is slower to implement when you want to get creative and the settings are not easily recalled.

Cons of ITB:
Reverbs are more challenging and tend to muck up the stereo image.
Compression is not as transparent and tends to muck up the stereo image past a certain point.
Flatter image and more challenging to create a sense of layers front to back and side to side. This takes a lot of time.
A lot of EQs are harsh sounding and create a harsh sounding result. A few are fantastic.

Neither one ultimately sounds better, just different. For the more modern listener, ITB is generally going to sound better. For the less modern listener, OTB is going to sound better. For jazz, bluegrass and classical OTB all the way. Most other types of music could go either way. For the stuff I write, I prefer OTB, but it's more work.
 
Wanted to comment on the blindfold test above. It the music was mixed OTB vs. ITB and then both summed back to the box, it's challenging but not impossible to tell the difference. If one goes to tape vs ITB it's very apparent.
 
As mentioned above there are several ways to go OTB like mixer based and patching effects, folcrum to preamp, dangerous 2-buss. Depending on the preamp used for the final stereo mix, that will have a dramatic effect. Hybrid mixing can be all over the map.

Middleman


People who have not mixed extensively on both, should probably not comment.

I have so I will.

Pros of OTB:
Reverbs layer better behind the the source.
External Compression sounds more interesting.
Wider & Deeper apparent imaging.
Analog processing on the master buss, sounds more authentic (to me).

Pros of ITB:
Faster
Can try more options in a shorter amount of time with regard to plug ins.
Automation is a dream.
Some plugins, have no real world counterpart so I am going out on a limb to say there are more experimental & innovative things happening with plugs ins than hardware.

Cons of OTB:
Cost of hardware and cables
Setting external hardware is slower to implement when you want to get creative and the settings are not easily recalled.

Cons of ITB:
Reverbs are more challenging and tend to muck up the stereo image.
Compression is not as transparent and tends to muck up the stereo image past a certain point.
Flatter image and more challenging to create a sense of layers front to back and side to side. This takes a lot of time.
A lot of EQs are harsh sounding and create a harsh sounding result. A few are fantastic.

Neither one ultimately sounds better, just different. For the more modern listener, ITB is generally going to sound better. For the less modern listener, OTB is going to sound better. For jazz, bluegrass and classical OTB all the way. Most other types of music could go either way. For the stuff I write, I prefer OTB, but it's more work.
 
Wanted to comment on the blindfold test above. It the music was mixed OTB vs. ITB and then both summed back to the box, it's challenging but not impossible to tell the difference. If one goes to tape vs ITB it's very apparent.
 
As mentioned above there are several ways to go OTB like mixer based and patching effects, folcrum to preamp, dangerous 2-buss. Depending on the preamp used for the final stereo mix, that will have a dramatic effect. Hybrid mixing can be all over the map.

That is right on the money as far as I'm concerned.  Especially:

"Flatter image and more challenging to create a sense of layers front to back and side to side. This takes a lot of time. 
A lot of EQs are harsh sounding and create a harsh sounding result. A few are fantastic. "


Which Eqs have you found that are "fantastic"?

amiller


I read a couple of short threads on the topic that made me curious.  I don't know much about the issues regarding both ITB and OTB and thought I'd post here to find out more on the subject.  From what I've read, the OTB camp seems to be pretty passionate about that method.  The ITB guys seem to be defending ITB but concede that OTB "may" produce better sonic results.

Everyone will give you a different explanation. It's something you'll just need to try for yourself. I felt Middleman really offered a solid post on this. However, HIS experiences may not be YOURS or mine. Your monitors are super important as to what literally sounds better to you in this realm.
 
For example, I could give you so many takes on this, it would spin your head around. If I gave my take based on all the years I ran analog gear and used X monitors vs what I use today, I'm not giving OTB a fair shake. To sum it up for me....NS-10's sounded terrible OTB and they sounded terrible ITB to me. Fixing them via room/monitor correction made a huge difference. Not to mention, I have a wider array fo monitors that I use now that I didn't have when I was OTB.
 
I do still have 2 tape machines that I use with my analog gear. One is hooked up and I can listen to all my hardware gear and the tape machine through the monitors I use now. I can't say it's better....but would be better for certain things...certain styles of music...certain instrumentation. But better...not one bit in MY opinion, just "different".
 
ITB works so well for me, I've been able to make any mix I've done OTB sound so close, it doesn't justify the need to use it. Meaning, I can record a tune OTB using all my hardware stuff. Mix it and it's done. I can record that same song ITB, and it will sound a little different. With a few plugs and the right know-how, I can make that mix sound so close to the OTB mix, it's just not worth all the aggravation it took for me to do the mix OTB. And, there are quite a few limitations in the OTB realm unless you have the hardware gear to do it right. Is it worth it? Most definitely...just not to me because I'm getting the results I want without it.
 
Look at it like this....OTB is a brush of color. ITB is a brush of color....which one you use will just color things differently but both are equally lethal...just different. :)
 
-Danny

I have done a lot of OTB summing and for quite a long time too, in two forms. One with several sound cards and many outputs feeding a 32 channel analog desk so the summing is happening in there on the analog mixer buss etc. But also done lots of sending stereo stems from ITB out to external summing devices.

With the mixer I found the sound of the mixer almost too influential on the sound. (unless it is a very expensive one that is) I preferred the sound of digital better. As far as sending stereo stems to external summing boxes, the verdict is that if the summing boxes are of very high quality it is very hard to tell the difference, certainly not worth the trouble. Unless they are Neve summing boxes say and then the sound of a Neve is imparted a bit. (Input and Output transformers now)

Any external sound addition like this can be done with plugins now so it almost unnecessary. I have found that digital can do it all very nicely and I can get the same sound as the external summing box. All styles too. I have done a few classy Jazz recordings too all ITB and they have certainly come out sounding pretty good. When the music is great too it just transcends all that stuff by miles.

If the external summing box is inferior for any reason then it is possible to tell the difference and in most cases like this the summing sound is in fact worse than the ITB sound as demonstrated in this thread.

http://forum.cakewalk.com...4073&high=SUMThang

That was an interesting thread and there some differing opinions in there. That was back in 2010 as well and there have been some significant improvements in the types of plugins we have now on channels and busses to create just the same effect and I am impressed as to how well they are doing it these days.

What external summing is capable of is much less important and significant than the many things that come well before it such as in the composing, performing tracking and mixing. Then there is so much one can do in the (ITB) mastering phase now in terms of making an all ITB production sound so good. I think it might be a big ploy to get you to go out and spend lots of money on summing boxes thinking it is going to transform your mixes. I wonder how many they are selling now. If they are smart, they will work with the plugin developers and transfer their analog knowledge over to something that can be replicated so well digitally.

Wow, There are some really strong, yet great opinions here and ( as expected) opinions are all over the map on this.  I refrain from saying anything as I have never really done much OTB work.   I have looked into analog mixing boards and backed out because of the lack of automation or settings recall.    I agree that many won't do much processing on the way in because until you have more experiance under your belt, you simply may not know what "sound" you will ultimately be going for when your in the tracking phase.   That takes time and expertise to recognize and the more I do this the more I have (only just) started to recognize a bad vs. good & useable guitar, bass, or vocal tones going in.  Fixing these issue in tracking is much better but if you don't  whet your shooting for, it's impossible to tell why something will or won't work ya know?

  And as stated above (and a billion times before that)  experiance makes all the difference.  I am 100% sure that if someone like Bob Katz came to my studio and worked with my gear on a local rock band while I went to his studio and worked with Aerosmith, that from a sonic quality standpoint his recording would be far better than mine.

Jeff Evans


Dean brings up some interesting points. And that is a great ITB way of working is also due to the way music can be created in that environment alone. When I talk about comparing ITB/OTB final mixes I am referring musically in most situations there with high quality musicians playing either against a click track or totally live. And overdubs were done etc. It was mainly a situation involving high quality mikes and pres and converters etc..The styles have been acoustic and Jazz in these situations as well. I have sent stems out to external summing boxes and compared that to completely internal bussing only to find very little difference. I think once you start making music the way Dean has mentioned then it is not going to matter much whether you mix your final mix ITB or OTB. (Unless you take an electronically created track, stem or mix and send it out to a Neve summing box to get some warm Neve sound added. But why would you when you can do that so well internally now without going outside at all)

I found mastering a mix on a quality reel to reel machine had a larger difference compared to external summing options. (Except for that lovely Neve summing box but even when you send a stereo stem to it and back it is doing something nice, transformer sound being added) But that (tape and summing sound) can now be done so well digitally there is no need to do that either.

The more work you do prior to summing the better your mix is going to be. And I have found (for me) the nicer and better the mix, the less I actually want to touch it with external summing or anything else for that matter. I find adding some processing to a stem within a mix is a more interesting way to use external devices/or digital processing.

That is what I like so much about digital,. The fact that you can alter part of your mix or put that through some external analog processing but not have to subject your entire mix that might make it sound worse for some reason. That and the recall ability make digital a pure winner for me. All our previous analog thought and signal flow can still be applied while everything remains and stays digital. We needed all that analog technology and signal flow so we can model and use it now in a different way.

Yeah I felt he brought up some interesting points too, Jeff...as you did also. However, some of the stuff Dean mentioned I felt might have been a bit harsh or due to the fact that he may have a little bias towards OTB. In this field, I think we can hurt ourselves with bias. ITB, OTB....they are just tools that assist us in what we are capable of doing really. There is no best way other than the way that works best for a particular project in my opinion. For example...commenting on what Dean said..
 
1. A lot of people today don't seem to appreciate that messing up sounds is a lot of what music is about. I think it's a GOOD thing that outboard gear has an 'adverse' influence on the signal, as long as it's in a good way. There's a LOT of obsession these days about sonic perfection over soul and vibe.
 
What about those that don't want to mess up sounds in that manner? What's wrong with someone wanting something perfect in their eyes? Appreciating something that may be degraded walks hand in hand with something that may be too polished. Both are art forms that I truly respect. It's not easy to be perfect any more than it is to mess up a sound properly OTB.

2. A lot of the adoption of digital has nothing to do with art or music, but convenience and bucks. Why require someone to actually be able to play when you can uber-automate a hundred different plugins? Record it, edit and automate the hell out of it, and get paid.
 
With this, I totally disagree. Though there are quite a few that can't play, there are still many more that can and do play. You better believe it's great to automate or copy and paste. Why do I need to physically sing the same exact vocal 15 times in a song when I can sing it once and copy and paste it? It's the same line. To me, this is called working smarter not harder while utilizing the tools and technology we've been given. I once had a deadline for a song for a release of my own. I was hoping the guys in my band would have come through for me on the vocals on this tune. They failed miserably leaving me to do it.
 
In this song, I wanted loads of vocal layers and major production. By the time I got done the first chorus singing nearly 30 different back up tracks, my voice was toast. There was a modulation part of the song where it went up a half step. I just couldn't hit the parts because I had been singing for about 6 hours straight. I didn't have time to rest up and do it the next day...it needed to be done now if it were to make it to the single release we had scheduled for me.
 
Copy and paste to the rescue. Could I sing the parts? With ease...but just not today. Copy and paste, melodyne and I'm done. Did it bother me that I did it that way? No because it sounded just the way it would have sounded if I would have come back fresh. I just didn't have that luxury at the time. If anyone would have figured out I did this (which no one did because they know I can sing fairly decent) I would have asked them to meet me in an audio chat room somewhere and belted out anything they wanted to hear in real time. :) I'm one that will not record or manipulate anything that I can't do live in real time. So, though what you say here has some merit...it's not true for everyone. These tools we have make a difference in a lot of ways. It's up to you to use them or discard them. But no one should be damned if they decide to use the technology.

3. No one has the balls to make decisions anymore. Everyone wants to put off all decisions until the very end, after it's already in the box. This is much different from how it used to be.
 
I can't really agree with this either. You can't say "everyone". It's different than how it used to be because the times have changed and things have evolved. You either embrace the technology or you don't and stick to what works for you. Sometimes in the music business, you're on a thin leash due to the economy and how bad the music business is going. You're an investment to a label and unless you're super huge, you don't call as many shots as you would like. If you make a stink, you very well could be doing your thing to a cult following instead of the masses. People call it "selling out". I call it "a need to survive" as long as you don't hate every minute of what you're doing. Then it's selling out for the sake of a paycheck. The thing is...once something is in the box, you can do anything you want to it if you decide to. It's not like you're restricted...you can color as you see fit and hybrid. Digital only creates what you put into it.  

4. For the self recorder, all of this ITB trickery allows them to put out material that's far better than they can actually really do themselves, so it's a very slippery slope. Why learn to actually sing when you can slap an EQ, compressor, tuner, and de-esser on the track and do micro-automation on the whole track?
 
Again, I think some of your OTB bias may be shining through here. There are several (such as myself) that use ITB like a tape machine. For the price of Sonar, a good pc and a soundcard, we are getting the near equal to what would cost hundreds of thousands if you were to buy an automated console. We have tools for a fraction of the price that do what their huge hardware brothers do with a sound that is acceptable. If you choose to color the sound more, you use whatever you need to do so.
 
We have had artists from every era that used studio trickery to sound good in the studio.....and they sucked live. So we have more tools today that can cover this up....it's not like this never existed. We can name hundreds of bands from years ago that you know went nuts producing and sounded way less stellar live. Even today...some of the known bands are cheating with computers running the show. The blame shouldn't be placed on the technology...it should be placed on the people that decide to cheat while using these tools. If someone can't sing, why do people buy it? If this trickery is going on and it's well documented, who do you blame? See, the other side of the coin that you have to understand is....though this is the music business, it's also the entertainment business. What you and I find entertaining, the masses of today may not. If you keep the mentality to sell your music or your ethics to the classic rock lovers...chances are you will not sell very many albums. Why? Because most of those people are no longer living music like they were when they were 18 and buying every new release like they used to.
 
That's the thing with music. Most of it caters to the younger crowd unless it's country music or jazz. But rock and pop...you're dealing with a totally different generation that doesn't even know what vinyl is. They never heard of 8-track tapes unless their parents told them about them. The came into a world of magic and trickery. To me, some of this magic and trickery has become an artform that I totally respect and appreciate. I might not be down with some of it, but it's nice to have lots of options.
 
I'm a musician....to me that means everything music no matter what it is, how it comes through or what gets used to get the idea down. It's art. I might absolutely hate the picture Lars from Metallica spent 5 million dollars on because it looked like a baby ate food coloring and threw up all over the canvas...but it's art. I embrace all the new stuff we have available and am thankful to have it. If I choose not to use it, that's a choice...when I need it, it's there. If I feel something should be OTB or I need to run my reel to reel along side of Sonar using SMPTE, I've done it before, I'll do it again. The idea at the end of the day, is to get your idea out of your head. Whether you choose to use OTB or ITB...there is no wrong choice other than the choice to not ever get your idea out at all. :)
 
-Danny

Danny Danzi

 
Why do I need to physically sing the same exact vocal 15 times in a song when I can sing it once and copy and paste it? It's the same line. To me, this is called working smarter not harder while utilizing the tools and technology we've been given. I once had a deadline for a song for a release of my own. I was hoping the guys in my band would have come through for me on the vocals on this tune. They failed miserably leaving me to do it.
 
In this song, I wanted loads of vocal layers and major production. By the time I got done the first chorus singing nearly 30 different back up tracks, my voice was toast. There was a modulation part of the song where it went up a half step. I just couldn't hit the parts because I had been singing for about 6 hours straight. I didn't have time to rest up and do it the next day...it needed to be done now if it were to make it to the single release we had scheduled for me.  

As I said, for non-artistic reasons. You did it for reasons of commerce. I don't condemn you for it, but it wasn't to make better music, it was to get a product out. There's a difference. If everyone were up front about it, and admitted how much they manipulated their music, I wouldn't be so ****y about it. But of course really no one is.

I can't really agree with this either. You can't say "everyone". It's different than how it used to be because the times have changed and things have evolved. You either embrace the technology or you don't and stick to what works for you.   

Yes, I was being hyperbolic with the 'everyone' thing. But it's way too many people. And again, what you say is what I said. You are talking about doing things for reasons of commerce, not art. I don't condemn you for it, but it's the case, and it shouldn't be treated as something it's not.

Again, I think some of your OTB bias may be shining through here. There are several (such as myself) that use ITB like a tape machine. For the price of Sonar, a good pc and a soundcard, we are getting the near equal to what would cost hundreds of thousands if you were to buy an automated console. We have tools for a fraction of the price that do what their huge hardware brothers do with a sound that is acceptable. If you choose to color the sound more, you use whatever you need to do so.   

I wasn't talking about just using a DAW vs. tape, or a hardware vs. software EQ really. I was talking about way, way beyond that, i.e. the way that much popular music is made today. The use of hardware during tracking or doing it after the fact in one way or another is a whole other issue, and not as big an issue. On that front I was just expressing the opinion that it'll never get better (where better means better music, not more perfection) than capturing a good performance by good musicians and committing to it up front.

We have had artists from every era that used studio trickery to sound good in the studio.....and they sucked live. So we have more tools today that can cover this up....it's not like this never existed. We can name hundreds of bands from years ago that you know went nuts producing and sounded way less stellar live. Even today...some of the known bands are cheating with computers running the show. The blame shouldn't be placed on the technology...it should be placed on the people that decide to cheat while using these tools.  

 
Well, yeh, I WAS blamiung the people who use the tools. If these tools had been created and no one used them, I wouldn't be saying any of this. And of course a big difference is that, back then, you had to face the embarrassment of sounding not very good live, and that's a big difference, which I think would ENCOURAGE development as a musician.
 
To be fair also, back in the day, those folks had to often deal with some seriously crap sound systems in a lot of live performance situations. The state of that art has improved a lot since then.
 

skullsession


....can of worms....

 
That sums up ITB vs OTB for me
 
The greats, the amateurs and everyone in between are now often using a combination of both - which indicates to me that the line has been blurred and it is no longer one or the other.
 
Modeling plugins are getting better and better at capturing the "character" of the vintage gear & not just the effect itself and I believe that is a big reason some of the top engineers are starting to accept ITB a little more. Add to that - some of the plugins have a character of their own and have become standards in certain situations (One example is the Waves L2 - whether you like it or not).
 
With the advancements in plugins, ITB should increase in popularity - but high end hardware will still be sought after for the character it can provide. As guitar players know better than anyone, the tube amp has not taken a back seat to amp modeling, no matter how good the modeling is!
 
Just my 2 cents!