Hop on youtube and look at some vids with Andrew Scheps.
 
He is an incredibly accomplished mixer/engineer who's background for the last couple decades plus includes a whos who of pop, metal, hip hop, and more.
 
he has recently transitioned to 100% in the box mixing and does a lot of videos explaining why and what the benefits are.  He also Talks at length that he doesn't feel he has lost a thing.
 
BUT...  he still has that great quality incoming signal chain.  He has loads of gear and can use all of it(or as much as he wants) if folks record with him.  Or if he has only been hired to mix, chances are anything captured would have been captured at another great studio with all the fixins.   The right mic's into the right preamps, into the right eq's and compressors and converters, only then to be captured by the computer.  
 
 A to D converters is just something I threw out there as part of the explanation.  
 
think of any interface you would use to get instruments into your computer.  Whether its a unit costing around 100 bucks with 2 input channels,  or the multi channel roland studio capture I use.  The things that they have in common is they both have at least one preamp if not more, and both capture your audio and convert it and sent it to the computer via USB(or firewire or thunderbolt etc).
 
Obviously that unit and its quality is going to have some impact as well.  So if down the road you were to buy something like an avalon U5 preamp, some model of a coveted rack EQ, and a real LA2A compressor(just an example) for your incoming signal chain....  the last thing you'd want to do is connect it to your computer using a 79 dollar USB interface.  Know what I mean?  But you do need to get it into the computer somehow.
 
So, whatever interface/converter you use to get the audio into the computer should be capable of preserving that awesome signal chain you just built, and getting it to the computer in tact.  Thats when you start to consider the higher quality interfaces and different options for converters, and there are a lot out there that people like.    
 
At the end of the day I think it all comes down to headroom.  When you have an instrument plugged directly into the interface, or a mic plugged directly into the interface....  your signal can only be as hot as the digital world allows.  Break that threshold and you get some ugly noise.  Ya cant exactly overdrive your digital gear to get some extra punch and saturation
 
Analog has more headroom, and often it starts to sound better when you drive the headroom.  The way it starts to saturate can be pleasing.  All that volume and headroom and maybe saturation is probably the thing that helps make an analog signal chain sound a little more 'real' vs digital which can sound a little flatter.
 
so long story short, eventually I would like to upgrade with more good front end equipment.  Slowly but surely hah!
 
console emulation pluginss and harmonic exciter plugins and things like that can do great things towards simulating all of this.  Getting better by the year

Biggest mixing lesson in 2016 for me was to not use a limiter in my master bus. It destroys all the previous work I have done. This made me concentrate on my tracks which was the best thing that could have happened.

Good advice about the limiting!  Or really.....its good advice about mixing.  Depends on how you wanna look at it right!
 
Dont take this as me telling you what to do, because who am I to judge what works for someone else right, but just to share my own approach.  I do integrate limiting as a safety measure as long as I can integrate it non destructively.  Plus it gives me some visual confirmation that I'm on the right track.
 
I like it as a last step to make sure everything is where it needs to be and the final result truly is not peaking beyond -1(to avoid the risk of clipping if somebody converts to MP3, which often can increase the peaks).
 
But I agree...  if you are forced to squish it a lot to get the volume you need....  there is a problem in the mix.  What you want to do is ultimately what you described.  You want to focus on the mix so that any form of extreme compression/limiting isnt needed.  This is where a limiter starts to give me some visual confirmation that Im on the right track.
 
my last step is to listen to source material(from a CD, not like youtube or anything) to gauge loudness of a 'pro' record, and then add a limiter and use the limiter to bring my stuff around that level by ear.  I'm not watching meters yet.  Im just trying to get it to audibly sound as loud.  Once it sounds as loud, then I pay more attention to meters.
 
What I hope to see is that the limiter is barely working.  On the biggest peaks of the song, it grabs it and attenuates maybe 2-3 DB tops, and thats only those peaks.  But most of the time, short of those peaks, I dont even see any attenuation.  It gets a little louder....but its not constantly slamming the ceiling.  Thats what I want to see.
 
If the limiter is constantly riding the track and I constantly see some degree of attenuation happening, with even more at the peaks, then the end result is probably gonna sound too squished.  At that point I do exactly what you said and go back to the mix.
 
On the flip side....  if merely adding a limiter (without even pulling down the threshold) causes it to start attenuating like crazy.....then I know the mix is already too hot.   I mix so that my master bus shows -4 or slightly less at the peaks
 
I guess its a balancing act of hearing with your ears that the mix is full enough and loud enough, and seeing with the various meters that you arent doing anything too extreme in any one step to get there.
 
There isnt any magic in limiting though, which is why I say if you get great results without it....  dont feel like you need to change based on my approach 
 
 

similar, i always have a limiter on the master for safety reasons, but if i see it working, i back something off in the mix

Hi guys, it looks like a fresh, good batch of wisdom has poured on it there-thanks! Hey, Greg, thanks for the pointer, I will do exactly that (checking out Scheps) when I get out of here. Yay! More videos! He sounds like someone I need to study though. I thank you for letting me on that.
After last time, I just happened to have gotten a Sweetwater catalog in and I went directly to the audio interface section. I tried to learn what I needed to learn but you basically already summed up my problem I think. I am using that cheap interface that you mentioned but didn't think how it could be holding me back. I spent so much energy on everything else like the plugs and mixing techniques that I over-looked something so simple-pretty stupid actually. I don't need an interface that records a whole band at once because I pretty much am the band and can just record each part myself. That's probably mostly what caused me to over-look the obvious. All of you guys who are trying to help probably assumed that I was using one of these Focusrites or something. Sorry about that!
 
Now, if anyone has a recommendation for the interface that I might need, I am all ears. I guess this means that I will have to re-record everything. I am sincerely hoping that the new and better interface will really make a good difference and the re-recording will be well worth it. I agree with you (now that I have studied up on it more) that its about the headroom. I wonder just how noticeable the additional headroom will be? This definitely seems to be where my main problem lies. Odd, it isn't the more complicated stuff that's tripping me up, but an interface. I appreciate all your input about limiting and stuff but I actually have a decent handle on that if you can believe it. Chucke helped by sharing one of his chains and keeping the master clean and that pulled stuff into focus better for me. I have actually just gone through the "back to the mix" phase and realize the importance of getting all that as right as I can. The magic limiter has its limitations!
 
Hey, Greg (if you are still here!) are you telling me that you can get your stuff as loud as the metal records from around 1995 to 2015? That's great if you can. So far, I am still considerably below. Its too low-not too bad, but just not hot enough to stand close to the metal stuff in the last 10 years or so. Yep, now we arrived back at the start!
 
Thanks everyone, for all your help-I am a new man! I feel like I have just had a semester at a music engineering school.
 
Thanks for your input E-Dub and pwalpwal!
 
Please feel free to add anything else if you have it!
 
bob
 

Hey man.  So as far as loudness goes, yes I can get them as loud as any modern mix over the last couple decades.  BUT... I dont want to relate that to the interface itself too much.  Just curious, but what interface specifically do you use?  Now on one hand yes, a good one is a good one and it can make life easier.
 
But on the other hand, the interface itself shouldnt affect the whole loudness piece.  So I dont want to give you the impression that you need to go spend money because a newer and better audio interface is going to change the overall loudness of your mix.  Depending on what you have, and depending on what you theoretically switch to....  it often can make your source material sound better, but loudness itself is in the mix and the master.
 
My first suggestion would be to keep working at it little by little until you can achieve similar volume to other recorded sources without having to smash the life out of it with a limiter.  When you get to that point where you can create the loudness, then you can study quality more.  You may notice too much noise, or maybe the stuff ran through the interface is lacking a certain richness or depth and overall sound quality.
 
Thats where a good interface with nice preamps helps.  It wont automatically make it louder....but ideally it will induce less noise and capture the full sound in a way that makes it sound more 'real'.
 
Now as far as interfaces do go....as I said...  I use a roland studio capture.  It has a ton of inputs, and 12 mic inputs with preamps.  I needed around 12 preamps to record acoustic drums multi mic'd.  It uses the roland VS preamps that a lot of folks know and love.  I think they are great for rock and metal because they are not heavily colored.  Color is often what people want, but for rock and metal, its nice to capture a pretty transparent sound I think.
 
Now...if you want the same tech and same preamps...they sell it in smaller versions.  The roland octa capture and roland quad capture(quad capture being the most affordable).  Same preamps and features etc but in a smaller package with less inputs.  I like the roland stuff additionally because it integrates really well with sonar.
 
There are other good ones out there, so dont feel like the roland is the only one that works.  It just happens to be what I use right now.
 
Ive also used presonus and M audio stuff with good success.  I like everything the roland has to offer the most right now, but both presonus and M audio were also capable of good sound quality.  
 
 
 
 
 
 

It would be wise to do a little research about any specific interface you'd be looking to buy. E.g. the Roland/Edirol devices often come up here on the forum as a source of problems. I don't own one so I can't say what the issue is or if it's universal (probably not) but it's worth knowing.

Sanderxpander
It would be wise to do a little research about any specific interface you'd be looking to buy. E.g. the Roland/Edirol devices often come up here on the forum as a source of problems. I don't own one so I can't say what the issue is or if it's universal (probably not) but it's worth knowing.

I have already gotten a few questions about which roland, which copy of windows, and which version of sonar I have cause folks tell me the same.  There are reported issues.
 
I have windows 10 home, roland studio capture with whatever the newest drivers are, and the most recent version of sonar.
 
utterly no issues so I cant personally speak on whatever issues others have seen.  I can only wonder if its related to older versions/updates.  Certainly there has to be something to the issues people have reported.....but I do suspect it may have been earlier software/hardware versions just because of how smooth everything seems to work for me
 
windows 10 especially wasnt kind to a lot of stuff when it first came around 

Hi guys, thanks for your replies again! I have always used Line6 UX1 and 2. I have a few of them because I got them at a good price. This was years ago and apparently they are no longer made. Good thing I have a few of them...or is it?
I have never had even one problem-ever-with this unit, so I never thought to look around because I was happy. I am still happy with them unless, of course, they are part of the problem. It isn't necessarily that I have any problem so much as it is that I don't want to be missing out on something that I need to have, or ought to have.
 
I did not think that the "superior" interface was necessarily something magical because I knew that it really was not. But, again, if it is something that is hurting me, then I need to address that particular area. If you wish, you can let me know what your opinion of the Line6 UX1 and 2 are because I just am not into the technical specs type stuff, although I probably should be! Is it your opinion that what I am using is "below standards" so to speak? Or, am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Is it not that big of a thing? I don't notice anything weak or sub-par about the interface but then I wouldn't because I don't have anything to compare it to, do I?  Please let me know what you think, if you have the time.
 
As of late last night, I made a master which is about the same volume...loudness...whatever, as the "pros". It is a bit harsh in comparison. Not distorted really just something I don't know yet about how to tame the overall quality of it. I think that I am still missing something but its not so much loudness now as it is a harshness. I am using a fairly standardized HM EQ scheme but it still seems a bit rough. Back to the videos!
 
You know, my first keyboard, going way back was a Juno 1 and I loved it. In fact, I seldom bought anything other than Roland except for Korg, which I also loved. Still do. So, if it turns out that I really do need to upgrade to a better interface, it almost certainly will be the Octa or Quad because I already had my eye on them. With your recommendation and also SXP's words of wisdom, I shall proceed carefully. Thanks guys for your assistance on this!
 
Have a great one!
 
bob

Hi again Bob!
 
My advice for right now is to stick with what you have.  Now I know that some folks do have some distaste for those units, but I can tell you I have used line6 stuff extensively in the past.  Including an interface (maybe the same one you are using).
 
Can you do better?  Yes.  Will it completely destroy the quality of your work and cause the issues you are currently outlining?  not quite.
 
I think getting to the point where you can produce comparable loudness, and also good quality mixes that dont unnaturally reach out and grab you in any sort of bad way(like the harshness) is a way to start.  Once you have the technique down and your ears figured out to be able to produce stuff that sounds relatively loud enough and is pleasing to listen to....  your game will naturally elevate as your gear does.  The harshness problem can exist no matter the interface.
 
Especially since you say you are recording all in the box, and you have a smaller interface.... at minimum I have to imagine you are programming the drums and maybe other elements since you arent recording acoustic instruments.  In that regard, the interface wouldnt be contributing to any harshness or lack of loudness in those programmed elements.
 
How do you EQ?  I've been right where you are and still end up there sometimes.  For me, it ends up being a byproduct of solo'ing instruments and EQ'ing til they sound great all by themselves, and then not really paying enough attention to how they fit in the mix.
 
Like for example if you are a drummer..  you focus your but off on the drums and trying to make those cymbals really shimmer and shine.  You eq to really make the snare crack and the kick and toms slap through.  When you are done working on the drums....  you end up with something you think you like, but its actually pretty 'hifi' sounding in the mix.  Has too much bite from like 2k to 4k.  Sounds great when you audition solo with no context.  Its a little bitey in the context of a mix, but you feel like you dont want to undo those EQ moves cause you could have sworn that they sounded great lol.
 
Its kind of an ego thing where you have to relinquish yourself to the idea that everything has to sit in a place, rather than trying to highlight your favorite instrument in such a way that it really makes them stand out.
 
The frequency that makes things jump out and be heard.....are those same upper midrange frequencies that in high doses can also make things sound shrill and given listener fatigue.
 
another problem frequency is somewhere between 350 and 500......even as high as 800 HZ.  It can make things sound a little tubby and round into nasaly around 800 for lack of a better term.
 
Its common practice to scoop here a little to clean up the instruments.  When you watch people EQ and what not, its like they almost always treat here a little.  So you probably naturally adopt it.
 
the problem with digitally created, and often digitally recorded stuff....  is that it usually is NOT so thick and round in this area.
 
You pull those frequencies because its habit and you just think you need to in order to get that midrange mud out of the way, but in reality...  the digital instruments and digitally recorded instruments already dont have much presence here. 
 
In effect what you end up doing is reducing too much body.  And at that point it is addition by subtraction.
 
You make the upper mids bite too much and sound shrill because you have taken away too much low mid.
 
Dont take any of this personally.  Like I said I have direct experience with sabotaging my own stuff doing some of the same things lol
 
if you go back through the mix and find that you are adding a lot in the 2-4khz area to a lot of intruments, and removing a lot between 300-800 hz....  cut your eq moves in half.  If you added 3 db of 2khz..  change it to  adding 1.5 db
 
if you subtracted 3db at 350 hz, change it to subtracting 1.5
 
that alone will round things out.