ITB vs. OTB Mixing: Which One to Choose?
Throughout my studio career, I have always witnessed the debate between digital and analog. Even though digital was already well-developed 25 years ago, analog mixers and outboard gear were still much more widespread and represented the heart of most recording studios.
Today, this pseudo-rivalry continues to generate countless words, discussions, and content. The underlying idea is that sampling, processing power, and emulation have now become so effective that they can almost completely replace hardware that processes signals in the analog domain.
Personally, I don’t think one can definitively establish which of the two solutions is better. I believe it is much more interesting to understand in which contexts one technology might be more useful than the other and, above all, which workflow allows the engineer to reach the envisioned result more quickly.
ITB Mixing: Everything Inside the DAW
Starting with digital, we can all agree that the processing power of modern systems is now capable of representing and processing audio signals with extraordinary precision. High sample rates, bit depths, and increasingly advanced algorithms have made digital an extremely powerful tool.
In the mixing world, it is therefore more than convenient to use hardware emulations in the form of software plug-ins and apply compressors like the 1176 and LA-2A, equalizers, saturators, reverbs, and many other machines that made recording history to our tracks.
Working in a DAW such as Pro Tools, Nuendo, Reaper, and many others allows, as is now taken for granted, for great work reversibility, practically instant recall, extremely precise automation, and the ability to use a huge number of processors simultaneously.
When we work ITB (In The Box), the summing of various signals also happens inside the DAW. Those looking for a specific character can also use plug-in emulations of consoles and analog summing mixers, trying to add color and harmonic behavior to the digital sum.
Doing a good mix in the digital domain still means making a track sound great: establishing the right balances, working on dynamics, using compressors for control or color, equalizers capable of giving a specific flavor, and effects that can even emulate historic units.
The result can be excellent. With the right sound engineer, everything can sound truly great, and I think it’s hard to argue otherwise today.
However, subjective points of view, personal taste, and above all, workflow preferences still remain.
OTB Mixing: The Connection with Analog
In the analog realm, when we purchased our first mixing consoles and eventually acquired our Amek Angela, I always found a more intimate and musical space.
After all, mixing techniques are essentially the same: we always have to manage levels, panning, equalization, dynamics, effects, and depth. What changes, however, is the way we physically relate to the mix.
Naturally, today even in an analog studio, digital is almost always part of the chain. A 51-channel mixer allows you to work on a huge number of tracks simultaneously, but in most cases, it is the DAW multitrack that sends the individual tracks to the console.
Working truly and completely in analog would instead imply using a multitrack tape recorder: a real step back into the past that, even today, some bands and producers continue to choose precisely because of the approach it demands.
In the studio, for example, we can create a song on 16 tracks working completely in analog, without turning on Pro Tools. But alas, very few musicians today are accustomed to what it means to record knowing you don’t have infinite editing possibilities.
We have grown accustomed to the versatility of digital, to practically endless overdubbing, editing, comping, and the ability to correct or modify almost anything. These are extraordinary possibilities that the analog world simply does not offer in the same way.
What really changes when mixing on a console?
Returning to the mix, personally I can say that mixing a track on an SSL, Neve, or, as in my case, an Amek console, represents a different experience.
There is a much more pronounced hands-on relationship. Put simply, you use your ears much more and your eyes, numbers, and screen much less.
Moving a fader, tweaking the equalizer, sending more signal to a bus, or physically pushing the level into an analog stage creates a different relationship with the sound.
Then there is the actual behavior of the electronics: transformers, operational amplifiers, equalization circuits, saturation, and non-linearity introduce harmonics and characteristics that contribute to a console’s personality. The EQ shapers, the dynamic behavior of the circuits, and the console’s headroom are elements that, once you get used to using them, can become an integral part of your way of mixing.
Mixing in analog, at least for me, means feeling even more a part of the artistic process. Not that digital doesn’t allow you to do this, of course, but the relationship is closer, more physical and human.
Even automation can become true gestures: fader movements are made by our hands and not simply drawn through a linear, exponential, or other type of curve. There are small imperfections, movements, and instinctive decisions that become part of the mix performance.
Analog or digital? I choose hybrid
I think mixing a track in analog can, in certain productions, push us a little further, delivering a massive and powerful result, yet one that is musical and artistic at the same time.
This does not mean that an ITB mix cannot achieve equally professional results. It simply means that I personally much prefer working with analog.
The solution I find most effective is in fact a hybrid system: harnessing everything digital can offer me while simultaneously using analog for what it does best.
Before hitting the console, I can use corrective plug-ins, editing, automation, filters, surgical fixes, and everything that would be much more complex or simply impractical to achieve in analog. Once it reaches the console, however, I prefer to entrust the desk with a major part of the sound character, summing, punch, and overall balance of the mix.
This is precisely, in my opinion, the great advantage of the hybrid workflow: not being forced to choose one technology over the other.
Digital and analog can coexist.
Digital offers us precision, speed, recall, and practically infinite possibilities. Analog offers us physicality, character, and a different way of interacting with sound.
In the end, though, we always return to the same point: it’s not the machine that makes a great mix. It’s the person using it, the decisions they make, and above all, the ability to listen.
I have simply found my way of working: utilizing the best of digital, but letting the most instinctive part, the sound, the punch, and the overall character of the mix pass through the console.
And, definitely, I am happier this way.
