Before the music emerges from your speakers....

ASV, don't take offense at Miller, he can come across as sarcastic in his posts and I'm not sure if this is intentional or he's unaware how he presents himself.

I thought the comment...

"She is literally using mixing software (not a board, software) based on how it looks."

was cute given that the only two illustrations/photographs in the article show the engineer with what appears to be......a mixing console.

EDIT: There is a third (actually first) photograph under the title and it is the engineer in front of the....again.

@tuberist ...No offense taken, but thank you for the concern.  It takes a lot more than print to ruffle my feathers. ;)   I'm not totally aware of how I 'come off' when read, so I tend to be generous in interpreting what gets posted.  focus on what's being said as opposed to how.

Works for me. *G*

@glupson ...yeah, how 'bout that...;)  Mix boards still seem to be the 'weapon of choice' for multi-channel work. 
When I go to concerts where there's a 'pit', you'll generally find me nearby..or as close as is practical.  My thought is to hear what the 'show runners' are, since they're in charge of what's going out of the arrays.  And (if I can get close enough) it's interesting to watch their screens to see what the 'comps' are doing.
The 'modern concert experience' is basically driven by programs that control the staging of the lights and 'what's hot and what's not' at any given time throughout the performance.
Even the 'curtain calls' are 'pre-sets' to some degree.
After all....'overtime' for the staff is generally avoided...Right? ;)

@maplegrovemusic   ....Thanks, and I'll add to it when I spot something pertinent to the scope of the subject(s) entailed. *S*

We spend so much time and 'treasure' optimizing our home equipment for our personal experiences.  I find the knowledge that the same regard for 'selection' of microphones, placement of same, and the spaces for the intended 'sound' of various instruments is just as subject to the same level of care on the 'input'.

Just the selection of the microphone type seems a analog for what we do with speakers.  And the same applies to equipment and SW choices...

IMHO....(and that's only how I view it, FWIW...)  It's only analog anymore at the very beginning (and that can be debated)...and at the end, in our homes.

One can take the stance that physical tubes only act as a version of EQ;  there's 'tube sound SW' and equipment that mimics it. 

(Now there's an 'A-B, behind the curtain' test I'd like to witness...not that I want to tick tuberist off, mind you.  I'd like him to be there, to help make the call...)  ;)

Thanks for the link it was informative and an entertaining read even though I didn’t quite follow some of the insider lingo. Yes, it  looked like a lot of equipment for someone who just clicked a mouse 😮

*L* djones, it seems nearly any trade has it's own lingo....

I look at the NWS pages for their weather info, maps, radar, satellite imagery because we work outdoors as much as in shop.  Reading the 'forecast discussion' is where the 'real meat' is, and it's taken me a year or so to 'follow the breadcrumbs'.

More abbreviations than you've ever seen....;)  Typ. for a gov't. agency, tho'...

Yes, a lot more going on than mousing around...if that was the case, at least there would be a reasonable rationale for lousy studio output.

If anyone likes twiddling knobs, switches, plugging and unplugging, tweaking this 'n that.....all in the pursuit of 'the Perfect Sound' (...in their case, the 'mix'...)...

Arise, off one's tush, go back to skool, get a degree, learn how to 'do' what they do....

Stop complaining...and Fix It! *L*

And then...we can blame YOU. ;)

(Yes, sometimes I fall out of bed on the 'wrong side'....actually, either one.*L*  Just....stand back....)