|
Mixing stage
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dogeh |
Hi all. Just curious how people approach there mixdown using hardware based studio.
Do you mix whilst your sequencer plays the midi arrangement, or do you record to audio, then arrange, then mix? |
|
|
| Ry Thomas |
| I prefer to see audio files but im not fussed either way |
|
|
| Dogeh |
| so you record each synth independently then arrange it then mix it. Would it not save time to mix directly from the midi arrangement? |
|
|
| Eric J |
If you are recording a hardware synth, then it is usually desirable to record the part to audio before mixing. This is especially true if your DAW does not allow you to apply software effects to live incoming audio streams. With software instruments, this is not so much a concern, but it can be beneficial as sometime you can get really creative by chopping up and rearranging a part that was recorded to audio.
In certain cases, people bounce because they have to. CPU limitations require them to bounce tracks to save that for other forms of processing. Certain DAW applications like Cubase have offline audio editing so you can apply software effects and bounce all in one smooth motion. This is one situation where bouncing to audio becomes a distinct advantage.
For a lot of people this also comes down to personal preference. I've done mixdowns live from the hardware synths without bouncing to audio first, and I've done it the other way around: where I bounce each individual aynth to audio before mixing. I generally prefer to bounce any hardware to audio before mixing, because I like having the project self-contained. This helps with latency as well, as my DAW is not having to deal with the inherent latency of processing an incoming audio stream.
Currently, my DAW workstation is powerful enough where I do not have to do a whole lot of bouncing to audio if I do not want to, but this is only true because I'm using 99% software. If I were using more hardware, then I'd probably be bouncing a whole lot more. |
|
|
| Dogeh |
| do you have a analog/digital hardware mixer or a software mixer? |
|
|
| Eric J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dogeh
do you have a analog/digital hardware mixer or a software mixer? |
All my mixing is done in the DAW software. I do not have a hardware mixer, rather a 24 in/out audio interface (which basically functions like a hardware mixer). If you are working with a hardware mixer, then you'll probably be better off bouncing to audio. |
|
|
| Dogeh |
| ok, ive got a hardware mixer (mackie 32:8:2). so id be better off getting an audio interface and routing the outs of my synth into the audio interface, then from the audio interface to the mixer? or is it another "what works best for me subject"? |
|
|
| Eric J |
Not necessarily. In your situation, you'd be better off just plugging your synth outputs into your hardware mixer and then going from the hardware mixer into your computer.
Do you have an audio interface for your computer? |
|
|
| Dogeh |
| no i dont. how would i go from the mixter into a audio interface? from the main mix output, or individual outputs from the channels, or the bus outputs? |
|
|
| Eric J |
OK, I'm assuming you have a Mackie 32 8 bus (if not this should be similar). If you look on the back of the mixer, you should see this:
Your Main Mix outs should go into your audio interface and your Control Room output should go to your monitors. There are other ways to do it, but this is the way I would do it. If you do not have an audio interface, I would HIGHLY recommend picking one up. Producing through your built in sound card is simply not going to cut it from a quality standpoint and your latency will probably be pretty bad.
What kind of studio monitors are you working with?
Another option to consider is selling that big mixer and getting a high-quality audio interface with a ton of ins and outs. I use a MOTU 24 I/O, and it has 24 ins and 24 outs, so I have plenty of channels for hardware, plus since it is all software controlled then I can control everything through Logic's virtual mixer. Much easier, and it makes it so that I can work on multiple projects at once without having to re-arrange the faders. |
|
|
| Dogeh |
mackie HR824 monitors. If its just the main mix output going into the computer/audio interface how would i arrange the individual parts? would this all be done in midi like i said before?
I have a 8x8 midi interface so latency shouldnt be a big problem. |
|
|
| Eric J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dogeh
mackie HR824 monitors.
|
OK, good monitors.
| quote: | Originally posted by Dogeh
If its just the main mix output going into the computer/audio interface how would i arrange the individual parts? would this all be done in midi like i said before?
|
The individual parts are recorded on separate audio tracks. You arrange the parts in MIDI when composing the track, then when you are happy with them you record them to audio. So if you have 3 synths in your track (one bass, one pad, one lead), then each parts goes on a separate audio track. You'll end up with 3 audio tracks: Bass, Pad, Lead. When using a hardware mixer in this fashion, the software mixer in your DAW software is doing almost no work before you start bouncing. The only thing it is handling in the main output from the hardware mixer. As you add audio tracks, then each of these are controlled from the software mixer. Obviously any virtual instruments will be controlled by the software mixer as well, but it doesn't sound to me like you are using any software instruments (correct me if I'm wrong).
| quote: | Originally posted by Dogeh
I have a 8x8 midi interface so latency shouldnt be a big problem. |
MIDI latency and audio latency are two totally separate things. Audio latency refers to the amount of time your computer takes to process audio signals. The more software plugins and/or virtual instruments you add, the harder your computer has to work to sync all these things up. That's what Plugin Delay Compensation does. It makes sure that no matter how many plugins you have on each track, the audio is synced up sample-accurate.
When dealing with software effects on hardware synths coming into your computer, you computer also has to deal with the amount of time is takes for the MIDI to send a signal to your hardware synths and your synths to send the audio back into the software. It is harder for it to deal with that because it is not done completely inside the DAW, so thats why you usually have to set the delay compensation it manually in that situation. There is still some audio latency when running synths directly into the audio interface, but its is less because the signal doesn't have to travel as far.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons that using a hardware mixer can make life more difficult. There are distinct advantages to using a hardware mixer, such as the analogue warmth a good mixing console can add, but you have to ask yourself if that is worth the extra hassles of dealing with mixing "outside the box". Any modern DAW software is designed so that the need for an analogue mixer is completely removed.
If you have a multi-input audio interface, you can run your synths directly into that and use the DAW mixer to mix and route your tracks all inside the software. Then you can apply software effects on the incoming audio stream. Unless you have a large compliment of outboard effects (compressors, eqs, etc.), then its really not necessary to have an outboard mixer at all. In software you can have as many channels, busses, eq units, compressors, etc as you want AND you don't have to worry about messing up your channel settings because you accidentally pushed a fader up or down. Its the best of both worlds.
These days, in EDM production I'd venture to say that a good chunk of artists are working without a hardware mixer. I've even read a few articles of artists that say they bought hardware mixers and never use them anymore, since mixing in the software is just so convenient and easy. |
|
|
|
|
