 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Mixing & FX
Subject: hardware mixing
Viewing all 31 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3 4
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.
Message 11/31 24-May-02 @ 09:09 PM - RE: hardware mixing
tortoise
Posts: 107
Link?: No link
File?: No file
My mixer is a Ramsa/Panasonic DA7mkII; its in my profile. The DA7 is easily one of the best mixers I have ever had the pleasure of using, digital or analog.
Message 12/31 24-May-02 @ 09:24 PM - RE: hardware mixing
"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... "
Influx - could you expand on that? I don't see how that is possible. $1000 can get you a decent analog mixer with 16-20 inputs. If you want 16-20 inputs into your computer, you're talking a couple of soundcards, right? Or am I missing something?
Influx - could you expand on that? I don't see how that is possible. $1000 can get you a decent analog mixer with 16-20 inputs. If you want 16-20 inputs into your computer, you're talking a couple of soundcards, right? Or am I missing something?
Message 13/31 24-May-02 @ 09:24 PM - RE: hardware mixing
yes, that clears things up a bit... I'm still trying to get my head around a couple things, but I think I get the gist of it....
it's a nice, elegant solution that suits your needs. wish I had one!!!
thanks!
it's a nice, elegant solution that suits your needs. wish I had one!!!
thanks!
Message 14/31 25-May-02 @ 04:12 AM - RE: hardware mixing
I meant mixing internally in the PC though, recording one sound at a time and then arranging from there, and using the onboard mixer and FX
so...for that grand you could build a riproarin PC, or just have a 16 channel semi-cheapo mixer and some cheapo FX.
theres just really no argument anymore
altho..still...if you keep it simple, dont use a lot of FX, and just mixdown to the PC, a small analog mixer and a couple of outboard boxes is certainly the simplest way to go.
More on how I feel about this in a couple months when I have more experience with the former.
so...for that grand you could build a riproarin PC, or just have a 16 channel semi-cheapo mixer and some cheapo FX.
theres just really no argument anymore
altho..still...if you keep it simple, dont use a lot of FX, and just mixdown to the PC, a small analog mixer and a couple of outboard boxes is certainly the simplest way to go.
More on how I feel about this in a couple months when I have more experience with the former.
Message 15/31 28-May-02 @ 09:21 PM - RE: hardware mixing
If yoou are ruuning out of desktop space do what I did... Get a second hand monitor and a dual head video card like geforce mx or mtrox g400.
Total cost is 100 bucks. Still cheaper then a mixer
I run the sequencer and the transport on the main screean while i have the controls for the mixer, Vsts, Send Fx, main volume on the second screen.. works good for me. way easier.. i might even go for triple head setupwhen the new matrox video card comes out
Total cost is 100 bucks. Still cheaper then a mixer
I run the sequencer and the transport on the main screean while i have the controls for the mixer, Vsts, Send Fx, main volume on the second screen.. works good for me. way easier.. i might even go for triple head setupwhen the new matrox video card comes out
Message 16/31 28-May-02 @ 09:32 PM - RE: hardware mixing
a dual monitor set up with some sort of contoller/fader box seems dope.
Message 17/31 28-May-02 @ 10:18 PM - RE: hardware mixing
Yeah - but you gotta go one sound at a time. that would drive me CRAZY!!! I guess I see your point, but it doesn't make much sense in the way I write and record.
Message 18/31 28-May-02 @ 10:28 PM - RE: hardware mixing
you need the physical surface?
I have a peavey pc1600x.. Still trying to integrate it... may be a cm motormix or logic control or houston?
I have a peavey pc1600x.. Still trying to integrate it... may be a cm motormix or logic control or houston?
Message 19/31 29-May-02 @ 12:11 AM - RE: hardware mixing
awww, So, influx is going all audio? What sequencer you going to use? Cubase?
Message 20/31 29-May-02 @ 01:34 AM - RE: hardware mixing
yeah, for now. or maybe even just acid? I dunno. Seems so far off!
Darin..thing is, tho...honestly? once you like a sound you can commit to it. You keep the midi in a folder, and just track it, and then its THERE...
its actually the way things used to be done anyway...really...get it right, then record it, THEN mix it
you work in all midi? Thats how Ive done everything til now, but...I dunno...the open doors of audio sequencing just get me all excited!
Darin..thing is, tho...honestly? once you like a sound you can commit to it. You keep the midi in a folder, and just track it, and then its THERE...
its actually the way things used to be done anyway...really...get it right, then record it, THEN mix it
you work in all midi? Thats how Ive done everything til now, but...I dunno...the open doors of audio sequencing just get me all excited!
Message 21/31 29-May-02 @ 01:44 AM - RE: hardware mixing
Audio is the way to go influx. I only see midi as a tool for getting hand sequenced grooves playable and looped. Other than that, midi can be detracting in the way one writes music (IMO). different for everyone tho.
Software mixing is cool, much better than hardware for quickness and instant gratification. Using sliders to mix is cool, b/c things are in realtime... But, with software, you get the best of editing - like a deep programming language (you prolly already know this). Running things through hardware is my way, then 'soft' it out.
Best thing about audio is manipulating sounds while everything is on screen. Tasty Pro Tools fades coupled with RTAS plugins can give a really big sound.
your in for a lot of fun. :-)
Software mixing is cool, much better than hardware for quickness and instant gratification. Using sliders to mix is cool, b/c things are in realtime... But, with software, you get the best of editing - like a deep programming language (you prolly already know this). Running things through hardware is my way, then 'soft' it out.
Best thing about audio is manipulating sounds while everything is on screen. Tasty Pro Tools fades coupled with RTAS plugins can give a really big sound.
your in for a lot of fun. :-)
Message 22/31 29-May-02 @ 02:38 AM - RE: hardware mixing
Interesting. I used to sequence audio and found it to be a bitch. I guess I see where you are coming from...
Message 23/31 29-May-02 @ 03:35 AM - RE: hardware mixing
yeah but you had MAJOR pc problems didnt you?
panama...for some reason I thought you were still doing all midi
the one thing about the audio thing that I am gonna be SO stoked about is the CLEAN sound I can get when I want it.
running midi...8 outs on my sampler, 6 on the virus, 2 FX returns all going at once..NOISE NOISE NOISE!!!
now the only noise will be the shit that I introduce.
and..with that tube preamp and meek compressor..shit will sound SOLID when I track it!
damn Im looking forward to this shit
panama...for some reason I thought you were still doing all midi
the one thing about the audio thing that I am gonna be SO stoked about is the CLEAN sound I can get when I want it.
running midi...8 outs on my sampler, 6 on the virus, 2 FX returns all going at once..NOISE NOISE NOISE!!!
now the only noise will be the shit that I introduce.
and..with that tube preamp and meek compressor..shit will sound SOLID when I track it!
damn Im looking forward to this shit
Message 24/31 29-May-02 @ 04:35 AM - RE: hardware mixing
hey influx, what meek are you using? I am thinking of getting a TWINq cs.
Message 25/31 29-May-02 @ 06:57 AM - RE: hardware mixing
Well, all my midi stuff is done on hardware
then recorded in PT LE. So you could say I do
midi - But most of the effort is in working with
Audio.
good that you going for audio now... maybe
you'll change your ideas about the over priced
TDM... Which overpriced, but it's soooooo
sweet
then recorded in PT LE. So you could say I do
midi - But most of the effort is in working with
Audio.
good that you going for audio now... maybe
you'll change your ideas about the over priced
TDM... Which overpriced, but it's soooooo
sweet
Message 26/31 29-May-02 @ 10:37 AM - RE: hardware mixing
itll never happen.
Brett..its a C2. low-level but I like the thick sound of it
Brett..its a C2. low-level but I like the thick sound of it
Message 27/31 29-May-02 @ 12:54 PM - RE: hardware mixing
tortoise, tell me more about that Ramsa/Panasonic mate please, like build quality etc & how you use it and what with?
also with VST or Logic, Sonar etc you could setup a cheap semi-control - all you need is one 16 channel fader controller unit for your faders & pans & another dedicated controller unit which you can assign to EQ or FX tasks on a channel-by-channel basis, and wire those two in on a midi merge box -
The 'eq assigned' controller would control the eq on a 'per-channel' basis as you flipped between channels (I can use the darkstar for example like that in VST to control VST's eq section & fx sends)
I would predict that sometime soon the majors will get into releasing controller boards... I think they will become the 'next big thing' like VA's were the last big thing.
but on the other hand, the hardware companies have a vested interest NOT to encourage people down a s/w route by providing cheap but quality controllers, so it's hard to say... they should be here already, & much more prevalent than they are currently.
also with VST or Logic, Sonar etc you could setup a cheap semi-control - all you need is one 16 channel fader controller unit for your faders & pans & another dedicated controller unit which you can assign to EQ or FX tasks on a channel-by-channel basis, and wire those two in on a midi merge box -
The 'eq assigned' controller would control the eq on a 'per-channel' basis as you flipped between channels (I can use the darkstar for example like that in VST to control VST's eq section & fx sends)
I would predict that sometime soon the majors will get into releasing controller boards... I think they will become the 'next big thing' like VA's were the last big thing.
but on the other hand, the hardware companies have a vested interest NOT to encourage people down a s/w route by providing cheap but quality controllers, so it's hard to say... they should be here already, & much more prevalent than they are currently.
Message 28/31 29-May-02 @ 03:12 PM - RE: hardware mixing
>> but you gotta go one sound at a time.
how few busses does your hw mixer have? how many ins on your soundcard? through 4 subs and individual channel outs I'll fly up to 8 at a time into the computer. unless I'm multitracking the sh-101, but that's another story.
how few busses does your hw mixer have? how many ins on your soundcard? through 4 subs and individual channel outs I'll fly up to 8 at a time into the computer. unless I'm multitracking the sh-101, but that's another story.
Message 29/31 29-May-02 @ 07:33 PM - RE: hardware mixing
So the meek stuff does the fat well. Did you use it on most of your bass. i like the puch of your drums and bass. I think the TwinQ will do me fine. Two mic pre's two meekqualizers,and dual mono/stereo opto comp. I have seen them Ebay for $699. I was going to go with a MTA channel and then buy a used dbx 162. I just don't think I will have that kind of money. The twinq should do what I need for input and mixdown. I may run my softsynths through it to before mixdown.. The bass and drums anyway.
Message 30/31 30-May-02 @ 12:33 AM - RE: hardware mixing
tortoise
Posts: 107
Link?: No link
File?: No file
k: The Panasonic DA7 is pretty solid board, and well made. It has a reputation for being very reliable, and I've never heard any complaints about build quality on the webboards for the DA7. The only problem that has really occurred is that the first units had a fan that got noisy after a while, but Panasonic changed the fan design and replaced them. The only other design defect I know of is a headphone jack that clearly wasn't meant to be used. I didn't even discover the jack until I'd had it for six months (it is well-hidden), and it isn't mentioned in the manuals. Which is fine, because using one of the monitoring busses for headphones is more flexible anyway (what I did during the months when I didn't know there was a headphone jack).
I've used most of the "lower end" (read: <$25k) digital mixers at one time or another, and the DA7 is definitely a "pro" design rather than a "project" or "home studio" design. A lot of people don't know that Panasonic has been making very high-end and very large (e.g. 256-channels) digital consoles for some time, and the DA7 is really more of a reduced channel version of their big digital consoles.
There are a number of features on it that give away the fact that it was derived from a professional studio design spec. 1024-step 100mm faders. More dedicated I/O than I've seen on any similar board. Full dedicated channel strips for the aux sends AND the aux returns. Lots of inserts (digital or analog inserts for the busses). A decent 5.1 surround mixing system. Multiple dedicated monitoring busses. A very mature and thorough operating system. A good sounding and very powerful EQ/filter system on each channel/aux/bus with an EQ librarian function for creating EQ/filter patches you can apply to channels. A great virtual patchbay for connecting and routing all the various inputs and outputs it offers -- a feature which on the DA7 is much more powerful than it sounds. MIDI fader layer with HUI control surface support.
I don't use a good fraction of the features the DA7 has, but I currently use it with Logic 4.8.1 on a Mac G4. I have 16-channels of lightpipe in and out of the computer plus 16-channels of analog. Incidentally, the ADC quality on the inputs is much better than average for a digital console, though only 24-bit 44.1/48kHz -- quite transparent as these things go and not harsh at all.
Overall, I really like the thing. The only real upgrade path at this point would be something like the spiffy Sony digital consoles in terms of the sound and features. This is the first console I've owned where I didn't feel restricted in how I could configure and route things, or in the number of resources available on the board. One of my big complaints about budget digital mixers is the lack of dedicated I/Os for all the features they theoretically support, a problem the DA7 doesn't have and one of the reasons I bought it.
I've used most of the "lower end" (read: <$25k) digital mixers at one time or another, and the DA7 is definitely a "pro" design rather than a "project" or "home studio" design. A lot of people don't know that Panasonic has been making very high-end and very large (e.g. 256-channels) digital consoles for some time, and the DA7 is really more of a reduced channel version of their big digital consoles.
There are a number of features on it that give away the fact that it was derived from a professional studio design spec. 1024-step 100mm faders. More dedicated I/O than I've seen on any similar board. Full dedicated channel strips for the aux sends AND the aux returns. Lots of inserts (digital or analog inserts for the busses). A decent 5.1 surround mixing system. Multiple dedicated monitoring busses. A very mature and thorough operating system. A good sounding and very powerful EQ/filter system on each channel/aux/bus with an EQ librarian function for creating EQ/filter patches you can apply to channels. A great virtual patchbay for connecting and routing all the various inputs and outputs it offers -- a feature which on the DA7 is much more powerful than it sounds. MIDI fader layer with HUI control surface support.
I don't use a good fraction of the features the DA7 has, but I currently use it with Logic 4.8.1 on a Mac G4. I have 16-channels of lightpipe in and out of the computer plus 16-channels of analog. Incidentally, the ADC quality on the inputs is much better than average for a digital console, though only 24-bit 44.1/48kHz -- quite transparent as these things go and not harsh at all.
Overall, I really like the thing. The only real upgrade path at this point would be something like the spiffy Sony digital consoles in terms of the sound and features. This is the first console I've owned where I didn't feel restricted in how I could configure and route things, or in the number of resources available on the board. One of my big complaints about budget digital mixers is the lack of dedicated I/Os for all the features they theoretically support, a problem the DA7 doesn't have and one of the reasons I bought it.
Message 31/31 30-May-02 @ 01:21 AM - RE: hardware mixing
Influx - no, the PC problems were last year when I was building my box. I used to run all audio WAY back when in 2000 ;-) when I first got into this stuff. Although, with the soft samplers (of which I have none) going the one-sound-at-a-time route probably isn't that bad. It'd be just like sampling the kicks from my pc to my sampler...I guess.
Viewing all 31 messages - View by pages of 10: 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
