• Hi and welcome to the Studio One User Forum!

    Please note that this is an independent, user-driven forum and is not endorsed by, affiliated with, or maintained by PreSonus. Learn more in the Welcome thread!

Mixing in air inside the box - Thoughts?

SwitchBack

Member
Think a big orchestra, a choir, nice concert hall, you in the audience, all individual instruments and voices mixing in 3-dimensional air before the sound reaches your ears. It doesn’t get more natural than that.

Compare this to mixing this performance in the box, each 1-dimensional individual instrument and voice channel stacked on top of the others into rigid 1-dimensional mix buses with no room for dissipation and interaction upways and sideways as in air. Tons of channel processing is needed to get even close to that concert hall experience, e.g. to tame all the individual plosives and whatnot as air would do.

Here’s the thought: Studio One has this interesting Mix-FX option where you can change the behaviour of the mixer as a whole. What about an ‘In Air’ Mix-FX plugin for that? Or even better, a ‘Royal Albert Hall’ Mix-FX plugin to name a famous concert hall. Would that be possible? It would in one fell swoop remove the need for 99% of the channel processing needed to make all those channels play nice together. The plugin puts you in the best seat in the house, few tweaks here and there and done. Pure science does the rest.

Does this take away from the sound engineer? Who decides how a performance should sound from say a pair of speakers: The sound engineer? Or the conductor? Or you in the audience who wants to reproduce that live experience?

Anyway, looking forward to your thoughts on this, both on the theoretical option of an ‘In Air’ mixer and the position of the sound engineer in deciding how a live performance should sound on track :geek::unsure::)
 
Last edited:
Interesting idea. My initial reaction is that, at the listener's position, the sum of all of the reflections from one source would be superimposed on the sum of the reflections from all of the other sources. Added to that , of course, would be all of the direct sounds from all sources. So where is the interaction? In a linear medium, they simply add. Are you talking about the appearance of a beat frequency ?
 
There is some of that, but I was mainly thinking of air as a pliable medium capable of absorbing and dispersing 'punches', very unlike a mix bus receiving a channel's signal. In air all sources together will create pockets of higher pressure and more violent air movement. These pockets then disperse in all directions, not just forward. This will dampen the impact of these 'collisions' on the listener, like an incredibly complex compressor. Compare this to the crude electrical/digital mixing in a console or DAW and it's clear that traditional mixing is far from natural. So we compensate with filtering and compression and delays etc. etc. to get one channel right. And then that channel interacts with the next one so we either have to go back or put additional filtering, compression, delays etc. etc. on the buses, and it's still not quite right. A mixer simply isn't air, yet.
 
Last edited:
I *love* this idea, as I love MixFx as a whole. I feel like it is wildly underdeveloped by third party devs. I bought Tape by softube simply because they designed with MixFX compatibility. I love love love this.
 
A very interesting idea. It does exist in the form of Vienna MIR Pro 3D. There are some things to consider that makes this quite the project to develop. It will need to be a plugin in which you mix, instead of in the mixer itself. Reason for that is that you will need to be able to place each instrument on a virtual stage in order to get all the components of the room sound right. And the level will also influence how this will behave. Simply setting the level in the mixer will not be enough and actually makes it more hassle.
Does this take away from the sound engineer? Who decides how a performance should sound from say a pair of speakers: The sound engineer? Or the conductor? Or you in the audience who wants to reproduce that live experience?
I don't think so, it is still up to the mix engineer how everything sounds. Example, I use a plugin called Mix Monolith, which basically creates a static level mix automatically, and does a really good job too. Some would argue that this is cheating, but what happens in the bigger studios? An intern makes that mix, tries to get as good a mix as they can, before the actual mixing engineer comes in and starts working on the details. With your idea that part is still very much a human job.
Let me be clear, I like the idea! Just not sure about how it could be implemented. It's a lot of work for sure, there's a reason why the Vienna MIR Pro 3D costs 355 dollars. Maybe they (VSL) should create a MixFX version of it? Although I don't think it would add much, except for the fact that you won't have to put an instance on each track, but that is no hassle really, you can even make a macro for that to make it a one button operation.
 
Thank you all for the responses. Keep them coming! :) Vienna MIR Pro 3D is new to me so I'll look into it. Maybe the 'in air' idea is more that theory already!

Technically my 'in air' idea is mainly to challenge the rigid 1+1+1=3 way a traditional mix bus works, simply summing all tracks together damn the consequences. Air doesn't do that. I thought Mix FX is effecting that part of Studio One's mixer too but maybe not. Could it? What parameters/knobs would you expect such a plugin to have? (distance, room dimensions, ...)

As for the sound engineer I also believe that the skill should come in after the groundwork is done. Yet, for a novice sound engineer to be able to skip all the beginner's mistakes could be both a blessing and a curse. In a time where AI is making big inroads who will be challenging the ground rules? (see: Monkey Ladder Experiment). Should you master the process first before handing over to the computer?
 
Technically my 'in air' idea is mainly to challenge the rigid 1+1+1=3 way a traditional mix bus works, simply summing all tracks together damn the consequences. Air doesn't do that. I thought Mix FX is effecting that part of Studio One's mixer too but maybe not. Could it? What parameters/knobs would you expect such a plugin to have? (distance, room dimensions, ...)
I would think it need a graphical representation of a room or stage. Whether it would be completely adjustable or have preset rooms to work from is a (UX)designer's thing. In that GUI, you could then position every channel where you want it to be, so first violins at the front left (seen from the audience's perspective), cellos to the front right etc. Furthermore, but that too is a designer's choice, you could add size and wall material options. But again, I think all this is getting too much for something that is already available and will probably not get that much attention in the MixFX form. I know maybe 3 or 4 people who would actually use this. For example, this would be a great addition for people doing orchestral mock-ups. However, the people doing that have such extensive templates, because of articulations and divisi and all, that using it is already a task in itself, because it means needing to put all of these in their correct positions. Plus. most libraries already have the room in their samples so it would be overkill. In the end there would be a small number of people who this would be for, I know exactly one, now two. And I probably would like to use it as well, just not in many cases because I do stuff that just doesn't work that way. But... I also do folk mixes and for that it would be very nice, so maybe I should invest in something like this after all. Eventually
 
Yeah, spatial positioning is starting to being covered by Dolby Atmos and the likes. Yet I wonder if a live orchestra would sound decisively different if you would shuffle the traditional positions. Sure you don't want percussion front and center and there would be the practical problem of the director not knowing where to look or point. But maybe a shuffle per row?

Still, that's not the mix bus reality I'm trying to challenge. Maybe compare mixing in air to piling up loose sand. There's a limit to how steep the ridges can be before the sand starts to trickle down. Very unlike the current mix bus reality where the mix (before further processing) is exactly the sum of the individual channel outputs. Coinciding peaks add up to levels far beyond what's possible in air, something a compressor/limiter can moderate but not without changing the dells as well. See the problem?

So each 'air' mix bus would have to weigh correlation of individual channel outputs to dynamically decide between summing amplitude or power, and check the final sum for physical impossibilities in air. Or something like that. Not bringing the solutions here, just raising the problem. All ideas are welcome:)

And back to seasoned recording/mix engineers: They know how to mould the mix to get things in shape, or rather know their Decca trees and the like to avoid the current mix bus realities altogether. Would they be happy with a mix bus that does what took years to master?
 
Ok, it seems I did not completely understand the intended purpose of your idea, but I think I do now. And I bet this is worthy of investigation, even if just for gaining knowledge on how exactly that works. I expect this will not be an easy task to code
 
As for the sound engineer I also believe that the skill should come in after the groundwork is done. Yet, for a novice sound engineer to be able to skip all the beginner's mistakes could be both a blessing and a curse. In a time where AI is making big inroads who will be challenging the ground rules? (see: Monkey Ladder Experiment). Should you master the process first before handing over to the computer?
I forgot to react to this one. And you do have a point there. For me it actually worked as an eye opener, I redid an old mix recently and tried it with this Mix Monolith plugin. Then I compared and found exactly why my old mix was not so good. And it was purely a level issue, not eq or anything, just level. Making the right choice as to what is important instead of trying to make everything stand out. I knew that, at leas, I learned that after I did that fiorst mix, but to have it so clearly demonstrated was still a revelation. So even though the plugin did the job it taught me a lot that I would have trouble learning in another way.


It seems I did not completely understand the intended purpose of your idea, but I think I do now. And I bet this is worthy of investigation, even if just for gaining knowledge on how exactly sound works through air compared to digital summing. I expect this will not be an easy task to code. Whether mixing engineers will be happy with something like that? No idea. I mean, were mixing engineers happy when eq was introduced? It took away some of the work during recording (not really, but you know what I mean). What about compression? I think compression was really sort of a cheat back then. Until the creative value was discovered.
 
Which is completely fine, at some point everything becomes an instrument in its own right :) In its most extreme form modern music is created entirely inside computers/DAWs, with air never being part of the equation. It's made that way complete with all the processing used to make it just so.

Classical music on the other hand heavily depends on air and venue. To create a truthful album of something like that requires craft more than creativity I guess. Part of the reason why analog mixing regained ground is the mixing mechanics. Analog mixers have slew rate limitations, a technical imperfection which borders on the trickling sand analogy. In a way that makes analog mixers mix more natural than the painfully precise digital mixers (where the use compressors/limiters is inevitable, to take the edge off things even before creativity starts). It's the slew rate 'imperfection' which made me think that Mix-FX could be the prefect tool to implement my 'In Air' idea too, one step beyond emulating famous analog mixing consoles...
 
Last edited:
The idea of using MixFX for time-related processing is very Interesting. I wonder if an algorithmic reverb could do a credible enough job to at least give the "feel" of air. My guess is that might be easier to implement than a convolution-based version, but I know nothing about coding.

[Sidebar comment: Bringing slew rate into the discussion is interesting as well. For those who want to know more about how slew rate affects sound, I think this is a good article.]
 
I was thinking about the reverb element. Is reverb a purposely designed property of concert halls or an inevitable reality when channeling sound (or both)? I know you can play or sing to the acoustics of a venue, making use of what's there. Yet, in an ideal world would concert halls have overlaying reflections? Think talking into a pipe: Do it very quietly and intelligibility is very good over long distances; Do it loudly and the reflections make a mess of things. Why is that? Turbulence? Is the same (but to a different degree) happening to sound excursions in venues? It may be easier to leave this part out of the In Air FX-Mix plugin at first, creating a 'no flaws' venue so to speak. I may have opened a can of worms here... 🪱🪱;)
 
I'm wondering which reverb (algorithmic or convolution) might best preserve that initial example of a concert hall, mixing all of the 3 dimensional air before ones ears.

Just for the sake of origin and thoughts, I'm recalling the ideal way to capture that initial ambience at ones seat, if we were to record that concert hall moment. The tried and true mic'ing comes to mind of two condenser mic's in a forward V arrangement as the source. That would then be a way to preserve some impulse response to perhaps go forward with to a reverb or two reverbs. Maybe the answer is both a convolution, mixed with algorithmic reverb, for some summing, or add-on. Best simulating such 3D air. Both reverbs enhancing their own ability to enhance reflections, space, and convolution's IR.

One snafu that typically gets in the way of that perfect sound setting, of what is purely amazing in that real world, yet doesn't necessarily translate to an awe inspiring mix. Many of us experience for example that insanely great guitar sound. It's in stereo, it's magical and we wish to preserve that sound in our ears onto record (figuratively). The problem is the translation of getting that sound close often doesn't jive with the best product of what the mix needs to be, or some technical limitation be it amplifier slew rate, or other . It might result in something too "airy" if I may use that term. "Sounded great then, but something less has happened!"

Still, the intent here is good, but what I'm saying is does the way (or end), justify the mean? It's probably a matter of ballparking that feel, with with some DSP. Perhaps more mics covering more space, for improved IR? Dunno. Often with mic'ing, less as in the two used example above is more.

There's likely more to the conversation such as the decision of preserving the closer soundstage, or around the instruments, if (and likely) some sound is overtaken by the hall itself. Then, the console of preferred type is going to play a roll in all of this.
Not looking to convolute the subject, but there would be that added factor to determine, where that potential mix-bus plays in.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Lokeyfly. Interesting points regarding proven solutions for capturing live (acoustic) performances. The line I want to lift from it is: "Often with mic'ing, less as in the two used example above is more." Why is that? It touches on the main point I'm raising in this thread: For mixing close-mic'ed acoustic performances (and maybe in general) the traditional straight sum mix bus is flawed. It was far from ideal in analog consoles and it got worse with digital mixing. With the abundance of processing power at our disposal today someone should take a real close look at it and come up with something better. Thoughts?:)
 
Last edited:
I can definitely recommend MIR Pro 3D from Vienna, give it a try, it will probably blow your mind (but not your ears 🤓)
 
Back
Top