 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Mixing & FX
Subject: hardware mixing
Original Message 1/31 23-May-02 @ 07:36 PM - hardware mixing
any of you out there mixing using a hardware mixer?
I've been wondering if someone would ever decide to go to a software setup after they've been using mostly hardware....
the reason I ask is that I have always imagined a hardware setup to be the ideal... just sequence the midi, every instrument is feeding into the desk, and start flipping faders and adding fx for a mixdown... I can't help but think that twisting knobs for compression and EQ settings would be somehow better.... I thought that it would also be faster to make tracks, since I don't have to record every single midi track into audio inside my PC - the midi-triggered sounds would just come in through my desk channels.... no need to render them... right??!!?
but lately all this talk about software sampling, etc. is making me wonder.... more and more people are saying they want everything inside the box, and I can see their point.... we're getting closer and closer to all-in-one sample/sequence/edit/midi and it's feckin cool...
this matters to me because if I am aiming toward a hardware setup, I will prolly buy different stuff in the next few years, and I can't decide which way to go....
any talk about the pros and cons of hardware mixing/setups is welcome... thanks!!
I've been wondering if someone would ever decide to go to a software setup after they've been using mostly hardware....
the reason I ask is that I have always imagined a hardware setup to be the ideal... just sequence the midi, every instrument is feeding into the desk, and start flipping faders and adding fx for a mixdown... I can't help but think that twisting knobs for compression and EQ settings would be somehow better.... I thought that it would also be faster to make tracks, since I don't have to record every single midi track into audio inside my PC - the midi-triggered sounds would just come in through my desk channels.... no need to render them... right??!!?
but lately all this talk about software sampling, etc. is making me wonder.... more and more people are saying they want everything inside the box, and I can see their point.... we're getting closer and closer to all-in-one sample/sequence/edit/midi and it's feckin cool...
this matters to me because if I am aiming toward a hardware setup, I will prolly buy different stuff in the next few years, and I can't decide which way to go....
any talk about the pros and cons of hardware mixing/setups is welcome... thanks!!
Message 2/31 23-May-02 @ 08:39 PM - RE: hardware mixing
well..one thing is that midi isnt always so tight. Once you get a system running all audio its usually that much tighter
PLUS...the sheer number and quality of available FX as plugins is just immense. You would have to spend thousands on thousands to get the same quality of sound
that said...I know way too many people (I tend to get sucked into this) who get all prissy about "production" and forget about the fact that the stuff most of us do...is about energy and atmosphere, not perfect reverbs and frequency analysis
to me...ideal...honestly...would be a sick ass tracking system with 24 outs...good DA converters, and a Ghost 32, with a few good FX boxes and other outboard stuff
I for one am making the change tho..used to do exactly what youre talkin about..all midi, using FX sends, etc, but...I am going to experiment and go all audio. Got a UAD-1 card which will give me better sound than anything I could afford otherwise..hopefully those plugins will be willing to be abused a bit...to dirty up some sound
so, heres my setup now:
E6400 (NEVER will I dump this. EVER)
Virus
O1v (will be for monitoring mostly, plus fader control)
Boss VF-1 (argh! I know this isnt necessary but I like the thing, ok?)
DBX 386 preamp with digital out (good AD conversion and has inserts)
Meek C2 on 386 inserts, for that round sound (and you can distort the outs on this and it sounds pretty tight)
Athlon system (1.4/512) with the UAD-1
see..now...FUCK that sounds complicated. Sounds like so much more than necessary!!!!
we will see.
PLUS...the sheer number and quality of available FX as plugins is just immense. You would have to spend thousands on thousands to get the same quality of sound
that said...I know way too many people (I tend to get sucked into this) who get all prissy about "production" and forget about the fact that the stuff most of us do...is about energy and atmosphere, not perfect reverbs and frequency analysis
to me...ideal...honestly...would be a sick ass tracking system with 24 outs...good DA converters, and a Ghost 32, with a few good FX boxes and other outboard stuff
I for one am making the change tho..used to do exactly what youre talkin about..all midi, using FX sends, etc, but...I am going to experiment and go all audio. Got a UAD-1 card which will give me better sound than anything I could afford otherwise..hopefully those plugins will be willing to be abused a bit...to dirty up some sound
so, heres my setup now:
E6400 (NEVER will I dump this. EVER)
Virus
O1v (will be for monitoring mostly, plus fader control)
Boss VF-1 (argh! I know this isnt necessary but I like the thing, ok?)
DBX 386 preamp with digital out (good AD conversion and has inserts)
Meek C2 on 386 inserts, for that round sound (and you can distort the outs on this and it sounds pretty tight)
Athlon system (1.4/512) with the UAD-1
see..now...FUCK that sounds complicated. Sounds like so much more than necessary!!!!
we will see.
Message 3/31 23-May-02 @ 09:41 PM - RE: hardware mixing
thanks influx.... food for thought....
I think part of my problem is that my computer has never had enough power to handle all the tracks EQ and plugins that I want to use.... if it did, I might feel differently about it... right now, the lack of power is kind of limiting me...
I'm upgrading next month, so we'll see what happens...
yer right about the masses of audio plugs and VST instruments out there... there's more every day... gotta get me some.
I think part of my problem is that my computer has never had enough power to handle all the tracks EQ and plugins that I want to use.... if it did, I might feel differently about it... right now, the lack of power is kind of limiting me...
I'm upgrading next month, so we'll see what happens...
yer right about the masses of audio plugs and VST instruments out there... there's more every day... gotta get me some.
Message 4/31 23-May-02 @ 09:45 PM Edit: 23-May-02 | 09:46 PM - RE: hardware mixing
tortoise
Posts: 107
Link?: No link
File?: No file
I've gone from analog hardware mixers to software mixers and back to hardware again. While it may be cool for some people to have one box that does everything, for me it was not very good for the workflow to have YET ANOTHER function crammed into the already too busy interface on my computer. Analog mixers (at least the ones that I can afford) don't really do it for me either because one of the key features I like of software/digital is flexible virtual re-patching and automation.
I opted instead for a digital mixer with lots of digital I/O to the computer. For writing/tracking I don't really need a physical control surface, but for the final mixes having a dedicated and efficient control surface kicks ass. Also, I have all the automation and dedicated transport controls that I would have if I was running purely software, and a MIDI fader layer that controls the mixer and other things inside Logic as though it was another set of channels on my digital mixer. Also, I have a suspicion that my computer would complain if I tried to emulate the quantity and quality of the DSP functions my digital mixer will do.
However, I would seriously consider going to a hardware control surface (e.g. Logic Control, ProTools), converters, and software if I was doing it all over again. The problem is that it would cost just as much or more to go this route while delivering less functionality and more problems. Eventually this is where things will probably end up though, especially when they start making it affordable relative to dedicated mixing solutions.
I opted instead for a digital mixer with lots of digital I/O to the computer. For writing/tracking I don't really need a physical control surface, but for the final mixes having a dedicated and efficient control surface kicks ass. Also, I have all the automation and dedicated transport controls that I would have if I was running purely software, and a MIDI fader layer that controls the mixer and other things inside Logic as though it was another set of channels on my digital mixer. Also, I have a suspicion that my computer would complain if I tried to emulate the quantity and quality of the DSP functions my digital mixer will do.
However, I would seriously consider going to a hardware control surface (e.g. Logic Control, ProTools), converters, and software if I was doing it all over again. The problem is that it would cost just as much or more to go this route while delivering less functionality and more problems. Eventually this is where things will probably end up though, especially when they start making it affordable relative to dedicated mixing solutions.
Message 5/31 24-May-02 @ 02:27 AM - RE: hardware mixing
so tortoise..whats your setup then?
and ghost..thing is...again...for the amount that you would spend to get a 'good' analog mixer and an array of FX you can build a SMOKING pc system, soo...
for cost effectiveness there really isnt a comparison anymore
Im kinda with tortoise on the "too many things in one space" idea...so...thats why Ill always use my sampler and virus, and probably just track shit and arrange audio in the PC.
and ghost..thing is...again...for the amount that you would spend to get a 'good' analog mixer and an array of FX you can build a SMOKING pc system, soo...
for cost effectiveness there really isnt a comparison anymore
Im kinda with tortoise on the "too many things in one space" idea...so...thats why Ill always use my sampler and virus, and probably just track shit and arrange audio in the PC.
Message 6/31 24-May-02 @ 06:27 AM - RE: hardware mixing
Hardware. You know it, don't deny it. Even 24/96 doesn't sound like analog, especially live. When you're using a lot of digital tools, ok, maybe soft...maybe, but if you're using analog boxes, and modulars, hardware is where it's at, even with the noise.
Influx, would you not even get rid of the e6400 for an e4xt platinum? ;)
Ape
Influx, would you not even get rid of the e6400 for an e4xt platinum? ;)
Ape
Message 7/31 24-May-02 @ 02:36 PM - RE: hardware mixing
from my meagre month with software, i can't see me losing my h/w (despite what i say) but i couldn't see myself expanding to h/w from s/w. it might not be analog, but it's a large enough palette. i definately don't think i'd be willing to go with a sophisticated control surface at this point, since the array of plugs and platforms seems like it'd make me regret purchasing anything in a short time.
the best s/w setup seems to just have a bank of 16 or 32 controllers to rpidly assign, since sometimes a plug eq suits more than a platform eq et al.
capable pc = good thing.
the best s/w setup seems to just have a bank of 16 or 32 controllers to rpidly assign, since sometimes a plug eq suits more than a platform eq et al.
capable pc = good thing.
Message 8/31 24-May-02 @ 02:51 PM - RE: hardware mixing
thanks all for the input...
tortoise, I have a question if you please....
I looked at your PC details and you have 16 digital channels in and out of your PC... so, how would you mix down 24 tracks of audio in your sequencer? would you adjust some channel levels in your sequencer, and then group some stuff together to get it down to 16 tracks, and then do a final mix on your digital mixer?
tortoise, I have a question if you please....
I looked at your PC details and you have 16 digital channels in and out of your PC... so, how would you mix down 24 tracks of audio in your sequencer? would you adjust some channel levels in your sequencer, and then group some stuff together to get it down to 16 tracks, and then do a final mix on your digital mixer?
Message 9/31 24-May-02 @ 08:39 PM - RE: hardware mixing
tortoise
Posts: 107
Link?: No link
File?: No file
It is like this with my rig:
My mixer and soundcard essentially support 24-channels of arbitrarily assignable digital lightpipe I/O. My digital mixer is currently setup to support 16 analog channels and 16 digital channels for inputs, with 16 channels of lightpipe output (8 buss + 8 direct, as currently configured).
My mixer has 16 physical channel faders, plus some buss and main faders. My digital mixer has a MIDI fader layer that basically allows it to hijack the audio mixer inside Logic. This allows me to submix at least 16 audio tracks in Logic to my digital mixer's busses as though they were going through my mixer (the integration is essentially transparent with some minor caveats), and still have lots of room left for direct channel assignments into my mixer so that I can physically mix additional channels on the mixer itself (rather than mixing it in Logic with the MIDI layer).
Therefore, my integrated mixing environment is essentially a 40-channel 8-buss hardware mixer, effectively hiding the fact that some of those mixing channels are actually internal to Logic, as they all go through the same 8 busses on my board and controlled by my board's faders. I could actually reconfigure this to be 48-channels, but I don't need that many so I don't bother. Obviously I can have a lot more channels than this in Logic, but this is how many channels I can control from my digital mixer. Having 24-channels of software generated audio directly mixable on my digital mixer is good enough for me, and while I use all 16 of my analog input channels, I don't anticipate needing more than what I have.
All the automation and whatnot is pretty thoroughly integrated between Logic and the mixer, so the overall environment is pretty transparent. I can control my mixer from Logic and vice versa. I know that some people with more time on their hands than I have created environments in Logic with a mixer that mirrors the capabilities of the DA7 (including the various DSP operations such as PEQ and dynamics) and tied the appropriate controllers from the hardware mixer to the software one, using Logic as a "software extender" for their physical mixers.
Does that clear things up?
My mixer and soundcard essentially support 24-channels of arbitrarily assignable digital lightpipe I/O. My digital mixer is currently setup to support 16 analog channels and 16 digital channels for inputs, with 16 channels of lightpipe output (8 buss + 8 direct, as currently configured).
My mixer has 16 physical channel faders, plus some buss and main faders. My digital mixer has a MIDI fader layer that basically allows it to hijack the audio mixer inside Logic. This allows me to submix at least 16 audio tracks in Logic to my digital mixer's busses as though they were going through my mixer (the integration is essentially transparent with some minor caveats), and still have lots of room left for direct channel assignments into my mixer so that I can physically mix additional channels on the mixer itself (rather than mixing it in Logic with the MIDI layer).
Therefore, my integrated mixing environment is essentially a 40-channel 8-buss hardware mixer, effectively hiding the fact that some of those mixing channels are actually internal to Logic, as they all go through the same 8 busses on my board and controlled by my board's faders. I could actually reconfigure this to be 48-channels, but I don't need that many so I don't bother. Obviously I can have a lot more channels than this in Logic, but this is how many channels I can control from my digital mixer. Having 24-channels of software generated audio directly mixable on my digital mixer is good enough for me, and while I use all 16 of my analog input channels, I don't anticipate needing more than what I have.
All the automation and whatnot is pretty thoroughly integrated between Logic and the mixer, so the overall environment is pretty transparent. I can control my mixer from Logic and vice versa. I know that some people with more time on their hands than I have created environments in Logic with a mixer that mirrors the capabilities of the DA7 (including the various DSP operations such as PEQ and dynamics) and tied the appropriate controllers from the hardware mixer to the software one, using Logic as a "software extender" for their physical mixers.
Does that clear things up?
Message 10/31 24-May-02 @ 08:47 PM - RE: hardware mixing
not really cuz you didnt say what mixer youre using.
hey pongoid..dunno..I dont really need the extras on the E4xt...more voices (never used em all up anyway) and the FX which I just dont care for...
but...I wont ever let my sampler go. I am sure of that.
hey pongoid..dunno..I dont really need the extras on the E4xt...more voices (never used em all up anyway) and the FX which I just dont care for...
but...I wont ever let my sampler go. I am sure of that.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
There are 31 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
