1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Need help choosing the right DAW Platform for me

Discussion in 'Recording' started by vibrations1951, May 21, 2014.

  1. vibrations1951

    vibrations1951 Active Member

    I’m still at least 3-4 years from completing my studio build (I have a build thread under Studio Construction) and as I get closer I need to begin making some concrete choices about my recording + mixing setup. I've used Nuendo from the start for more than 4 years now. I’ll try to keep focused and concise but I think my quandaries are closely interrelated between 2 dilemmas. Perhaps I should post each in different threads?
    1. I think my primary question is: Does it make sense to try and adapt/replace my present Nuendo setup for a modest Pro Tools setup (whatever that might be) to help me make my final choices?
    Let me try and explain. My studio is to serve as a lifetime dream career for my “retirement” years, not for sole survival income, but needs to produce some income and serve the community. I live in a remote area with no other studios around for 100-200 miles so I need to be able to work with most styles of music. To increase my market I chose Nuendo 4 some years back to have the addition of post production options. Because of the day job, moonlighting, finishing my home and constructing most of my 1400 sq ft studio myself (gratefully following plans from Rod!), I haven’t done much recording or mixing , and I’m not very experienced recording/mixing to start with. So I’m not so wedded to Nuendo that I couldn’t change platforms relatively easily.
    Most of my experience over the past 52 years has been as guitar player and live sound reinforcement for moderately sized venues and some modest remote recording. Very little of that experience involved digital equipment. I’m mostly an analog guy, “old and in the way”! I can’t and don’t want to lose the sound I grew up on and I truly love the cleanliness, ease and cost effectiveness of digital. Just to help clarify, I hate mixing with a mouse period! I love sliders and knobs period! By the way, I also just hate switching between multiple layers of digital channels and wading through damn menus! Did I mention I’m old and crusty and only willing to compromise so far? I guess it helps to know what I don’t want and I get this will cost me more bucks in the long run.
    2. So, with that said, the second (or is it 2nd and 3rd)thing(s)I’m trying to tease out for myself through this choice process is as follows:
    1. ITB vs. OTB vs. Hybrid mixing
    2. control surface vs. digital console vs. analog board.

    My present recording chain is as follows:

    Mics and lines>Mackie 1604VLZ Pres >inserts out>Lynx Aurora 16>AES16e PCI express interface>Mac Pro 8 core version 10.6.8 (6GB RAM) >Nuendo 4.5 (all clocked with Apogee Big Ben)
    With:
    Various UA Pluggins (UAD-2 Quad), Melodyne;
    Outboard: UA 2-610, 2-LA-2, AEA RPQ 2 channel ribbon pre, Lexcon MX200, Drawmer Dual Gate DS201, Alesis HD24 for remotes and backup tracking,
    Monitoring is basically:
    DAW- 2-bus>Lynx Aurora 16>Yamaha HS50M's/headphones/JBL 4411B's driven by
    Harman Kardon or QSC PLX 2402 2ch amps/Hear Technologies monitor system/Hot Spots/
    (Sony CDR-w33 for 2-bus capture)
    I presently mix ITB with Nuendo and a darn mouse! I have been weighing the pros and cons of Pro Tools verses Nuendo for a long time now as well as the ITB/OTB/Hybrid quandary. Recently I have had the good fortune to talk with a “semi-retired” recording/mixing/lighting engineer who is my age with admirable and envious experience and credentials starting in the late 60’s. He is Pro Tools all the way and was advising me in that direction too.
    I thought that perhaps I could use what I have now, add the Pro Tools platform and try for myself. This is where I am stuck hard. My cash flow is relatively tight right now (who’s isn’t right?)! I’m leaning towards saving up or sell stuff off to purchase the newest Pro Tools 11 HD. Then, perhaps pick up an older used Pro Tools control surface as well, if it needs to be a Pro Tools surface to work with this idea???
    I’m really lost with my research to date trying to figure out if that will work smoothly enough with what I have now without having to sell off too many core items and make major new purchases to make this idea work. It would be great if I could just uninstall Nuendo, install Pro Tools and switch out the Mackie with a 16 channel Pro Tools control surface with good pres, if a reasonable older/used unit like this exists and would work in this way.
    I greatly value the experience and knowledge base of the folks here and have not been led astray yet! I always read and receive balanced, highly informed, honest and most importantly highly useful responses from members I respect whole heartedly here. I’ve considered trying to contact Avid directly with my questions but I understand they have a reputation for very poor customer relations. Perhaps this is unfair and an outdated perception and I should just go for it.
    Either way, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I’m not really sure if my questions and purpose make sense. Maybe I just need to do more research before asking these questions? Please do what you can to help me get clearer on what to do next. I prefer straight talk and I know I’ve come to the right place to get it, so no need to waste efforts being too diplomatic with me!
    Thanks ahead for checking this out!
     
  2. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Hybrid is probably your best option if you want to get the sound that is closest to the analog sound you mentioned that you prefer. You are wedding the forensic editing capability of digital with the warmth of analog preamps and processors.

    That being said, there are different ways to approach hybrid as well. You can "round trip" your signal, using external processing, at which point you would return that processed signal to the same DAW in which you are working, but at that point, you are dealing with the possibility of phase issues and delay, because it takes time for the signal to leave your DAW, go through the various OB processors, and then return to your DAW.

    audiokid, our fearless leader here at RO, uses a hybrid set up, but he doesn't return the processing to the same DAW - he mixes to a separate / uncoupled DAW. This goes a long way to alleviate those phase and delay issues that the round trip scenario can present.

    You 'll probably want to look into a higher level of pre amp than the Mackie you are currently using. The Mackie is fine as a project level pre, but it won't offer the warmth that you say you are seeking. You'd probably be much happier with a pre that was Class A, and that has better converters than the lower budget pres - like the Mackie - are notorious for having.

    There are many options available to you for control surfaces. You seem to be someone who prefers the tactile approach to mixing - actual hands on using faders and pots, as opposed to a mouse controlled situation. Unless you have a lot of money to spend, and are fairly adept at electronic repair and maintenance, I'd stay away from an analog console as a front load. In order to get the sound you say you seek, you'd need to get into a desk that is a higher caliber; and they ain't cheap. And, those boutique/classic desks will eventually require servicing, so unless you're pretty good at repairs, I'm not sure it's a good idea.

    Now, what you may want to consider would be a Presonus Studio/Live desk. This is a desk that implements FireWire to send discreet track data and signal to discreet tracks on your DAW. The pre amps are very good, it has total recall of stored scenes, very nice EQ, as well as dynamic control/gain reduction on each channel independent from the others. If this is something you'd be interested in, talk to DVDHawk, a member here at RO who is also a Presonus dealer. He could answer any questions you have far better than I.

    It would help if we knew what your budget is. ;)
     
  3. vibrations1951

    vibrations1951 Active Member

    Donny, thanks for the quick reply! In terms of a budget, I can probably scrape together about a grand cash in a month or so. Then if I've got this right and went with a digital mixer like the Studiolive, after researching this option in the past, I assume I would eliminate the need for my Nuendo (or Pro Tools),Aurora converter, AES card, UA Plugs and Big Ben??? If that is so I could sell off this stuff and have considerably more cash on hand.
    I'm sure I must be missing something here. If my assumptions above are correct, (and likely they are not), how could even the newest Studiolive rig be comparable at such a relatively low price point?? Wouldn't I be sacrificing something somewhere?
    Please excuse my ignorance of the options and help me understand. Been a long day and my brain is bruised!
     
  4. vibrations1951

    vibrations1951 Active Member

    Still trying to get my head around this. Donny, I feel your advice is very sound and useful. It seems clearer to me all the time that hybrid will be my resting place with my wants and needs for sound and work flow. I read Chris' and other's posts in the Hybrid Forum religiously. I've been eying the Studiolive boards for quite a while and I'm very impressed. I will likely contact DVD as I follow his posts regularly and he resonates loudly to me as well and I very much trust his views, experience and advice.

    I'm a bit confused because it seems like I would be stepping down from the potential quality of my present setup (minus the Mackie pres). I did more research and it looks like if I were to eventually go with a digital board, I would keep my DAW (and experiment with PT verses Nuendo if that seems advisable). But then with firewire there would be no need for my converter or card?? Is this right??I'm still unsure of the advantages and disadvantages of a work surface verses a digital board. Would the pres in a digital board like studiolive be as good as a PT control surface pre?
    Sorry I'm all over the place here.

    I don't want to take a step backwards but instead, kind of set the stage to build upon a final setup in 3-4 years when I'm ready to install everything in it's final home. With the rapid changes in work surfaces, digital boards and consoles I feel like I should wait for this all to shake out before spending too much money and effort on a setup I'll just end up reselling/loosing too much money on at the time.

    I know I need to start working with a board of higher quality now and at the same time decide upon the right program for me, Nuendo or PT. I'm just stuck on which move to make next to get to this next step in my choice making with the least amount of cost to get the experience to decide and still be building towards a professional level setup in the end. I do realize that no matter what I end up with, my recording and mixing chops are my weakest link. I want to be sure I'm working them in a process that will benefit me the most when I'm ready to hang a shingle.

    I'm still not sure I'm asking things the way I need to. It seems hard for me to articulate what I'm trying to say but I feel like I'm getting closer to it. Any replies will likely help get me there so please fire away folks!
     
  5. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Well, here's one of the sticking points, Vibe... 3-4 years in this technology is a lifetime LOL. There's really no telling what will happen with recording technology that far into the future. While I personally believe that there will always be some gear that will remain timeless, you and I have no idea of what will become available in that time frame.

    I can't speak to the quality of the pre amps in a PT control surface, because I've never used them. On occasion, I've used their control surfaces to mix, but never to record, so I'm not the guy to ask on that subject.

    Also, I'm not sure that PT is your best bet. From a commercial/standard POV it would be, but there are more than a few PT users who have grown tired of Avid and their practices.

    You do have other platform options available - Samplitude, Studio One (which is the DAW software that comes with the Presonus desk), and a few others depending upon what you want to do.

    The preamps in the Presonus desk would be quite a bit better than the pre's in the Mackie - that being said, you can get better than the Presonus as well, but, of course they would be more expensive. Ultimately, you'd have to spend some serious cash to get into the boutique levels of pre's - Neve, API, etc.

    Personally, I think you should continue to save money, and when you get closer to implementing your long term goals, you'll have more cash to work with, and, you'll be able to see what's available at that time.

    IMHO of course. ;)
     
  6. vibrations1951

    vibrations1951 Active Member

    Well put Donny. I hear ya loud and clear! I'm afraid it's probably gear-lust on my part right now! I hear the rumbles about Avid all the time as well and had decided that my Nuendo is just fine and when I got some recent influence, I started down this path of questioning myself and thinking that I should try PT and at the same time do a little upgrade. The Mackie has been OK but is really still a weak link right now I think. Perhaps I should just think about adding a lunchbox and slowly build a variety of nice pres. That way no matter what I end up with, I don't think they would ever be as risky a gamble and hold their value as well while also upgrading my capture chain for now. Your thoughts??
     
  7. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    I'm right with Donny on not plunging into the PT morass if you have no reason to do so. As he has indicated, there is other DAW software out there that gives you at least as good if not better performance for a lower overall outlay. That said, you could do a lot worse than staying with Nuendo, especially as you ought to be concentrating your finances on upgrading the weaker links in your hardware.

    One thing you haven't said is the maximum number of channels you will be wanting to deal with. If this does not exceed 16, I would suggest you look seriously at the Allen & Heath Zed-R16, which would upgrade you in a number of departments all at once. For tracking, you would have a full complement of very good pre-amps for channels that you would not be putting through the specialist pre-amps, and direct outs that could either feed your Aurora or just use the R16's FireWire interface.

    The real gain would come by using it as a hybrid system in the mix phase, when with the R16 you would get excellent sonics plus full analog console operation with the attendent familiarity of use. Faders that are not needed for channel level adjustment can be switched for use as control surface inputs for DAW control. In the first instance, your Nuendo or other DAW would be replaying tracks, recording the two-track mix plus generating effect outputs, but you are then in a good place to consider the next step of moving up to what I call the two-box process, in this case adding a second computer as the two-track capture device. This second box would run with a separate sampling clock and a simple uncomplicated DAW is all that is needed here.
     
    DonnyAir likes this.
  8. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    As always, leave it to Bos to come up with a great option. (y)

    This isn't to say that the Presonus isn't a nice console, too - it has some great functions indeed, and as a digital console it's likely the finest in it's price class, but...it is primarily a digital console, and if you want the "classic" feel and tactile layout of an analog desk, and prefer to not have to shuffle through various windows and menu pages, then you'd likely prefer something more down to earth and familiar to "old school"... like the A&H.

    As Bos mentioned, this desk would give you the best of the two worlds that you seek, from DAW control surface to an actual dedicated analog console.
    A&H has a long history of quality preamps (and high quality project studio and live consoles in general ), but if you wanted, you could always add a couple of "boutique" preamps at some point - perhaps an API, Neve, Great River, etc. to use as a front-load into your current existing audio I/O to further enhance particular tracks, either on the way in, or during post/mix. This is often done on things like vocal tracks, acoustic guitar, etc.

    Because it has inserts on channels 1-16, you could also insert whatever OB processors you have, ( like your LA2's or 610's ) either on a discreet channel level, or on the master 2-bus to add cohesiveness or "glue" to your whole mix.

    But...with the exception of the great OB gear you already have, a nice desk and a collection of good microphones... I'm gonna have to stand by my original suggestion that when it comes to other gear, I'd wait until you were closer to completion on your studio. I suppose that we could all wager a "guess" as to what may lie ahead, but no one really knows what's on the horizon for recording technology, and a lot could happen in 3 years. ;)

    For further description of the A&H desk, click here

    FWIW

    d/
     
  9. dvdhawk

    dvdhawk Well-Known Member

    JP, I'm just passing through quickly today, but basically I'm in the same boat as everyone else. I'd be reluctant to buy technology today for a need 3-4 years in the future, so much can change from one year to the next. If you have an immediate need, by all means, get something that will be a good building block piece to help you get to the goal.

    If my clients want to do a major technology purchase, I recommend they; A) wait as long as possible, B) buy the best one they can afford, then most importantly, C) don't look at a magazine or catalog ever again, or you'll kick yourself thinking about what you could have bought with the same money a few years/months/ or even weeks later.

    I would like to clarify one point about the PreSonus StudioLive, while it IS a good multi-track front end, it can NOT be used as a control surface for the mixing ITB. I assume there must be a major roadblock preventing them from making it control surface capable or surely they would have done so by now. To my way of thinking, 99% of the engineering is already done. Every button, knob, and fader movement I make on the mixer can be mirrored in the Universal Control software you use for wireless mixing and scene storage. It doesn't seem like a huge leap to me, to have fader and fat channel controls do the same in StudioOne. Who knows, maybe 3-4 years from now….
     
  10. vibrations1951

    vibrations1951 Active Member

    Hey guys, thanks so much. Everything all three of you are saying is ringing true for me and my situation. I think this is starting to gel for me! So Bos, to answer your question first, I think I can do just fine for now with 16 channels. I envision wanting 24-32 eventually and leaning more toward 32. This doesn't include the special pres I have now and whatever else I might be able to get later. DVD, howdy and thanks for the clarity on the StudioLive. As you say, who knows in three years. I'm glad to see you all feel the same about waiting for when I am really ready. At the same time you all see that I want to upgrade soon and build for the future in the meantime while expanding upon my abilities.

    But as I tried to think this through I got confused. The A&H has no analog direct outs. Would the A&H board actually function as a control surface and run the DAW through firewire or would I utilize ITB plugins, editing, automation etc. and then route back to the board for additional processing and then capture the 2-bus from the A&H to another DAW? And where would the Big Ben come into play?
    I don't think I'm getting this? Help please.
     
  11. dvdhawk

    dvdhawk Well-Known Member

    OK, back for Part 2.

    Firstly, I'm sure the A&H is a peach. I don't have the hands-on experience with that one, but I'd have no reservations at all about recommending any A&H gear.

    We've established that the StudioLive does not function as a control surface (which is to say that it cannot manipulate the controls of your DAW). That's true whether it would be the PreSonus software StudioOne, or whatever. However, that would not prevent you from using the SL like an honest-to-goodness mixer at mix down. I sometimes use the DAW the same way you would if you were tracking to a tape machine - something like Boswell described.

    I don't completely hate mixing ITB, so if the project is going to need extensive DAW I might as well just grab the mouse. If I'm in a situation where there are good tones going in, they're going for a live feel, not going to want/need any crazy edits, I will track 24 tracks through the SL into the computer. Then rather than mix with the mouse and all that ITB nonsense, without re-patching anything, press the digital returns on the channels, push play on the computer, and mix hands-on through the SL to a separate recording system. (separate standalone DAW, or professional standalone CD recorder)

    I can do that either via the S/PDIF digital outs, or through balanced analog outs. The analog outs introduce more DA/AD converters, but sometimes the extra converters are worth it if we run out through some glorious outboard goodies like an Avalon 747 - which a good friend brings to the party. That thing just makes every signal that passes through it sound better. Either way, I'd have the option of importing the resulting stereo CD tracks into software to trim and level things. (converter-free, but now another algorithm or two comes into play)

    You could achieve a version of this with any analog or digital mixer, and an HD24, or a DAW with enough hardware outputs. The advantage of using a mixer with closely integrated software is, it doesn't have to go out analog outputs, and then back in analog inputs, which would inject 2 more sets of DA/AD converters. I don't have a lot of super high-end gear, so my philosophy at this point, is to try to avoid unnecessary conversions and algorithms - assuming there is some amount of error in all of them with each pass.

    That's all I have for now, I hope that helps.
     
  12. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    I think mcu control is very integral, the protocol is imperative. The nocturn is the only thing around im that's a decent knobby comtroller, that is cross lplariform,k and easy to I use

    There realy isn't a fully dedicated console that is widely excepted to deliver that mind of gratificaton. Even mousing around shucks,mound an manual are the controls. Mixing is always, not matter what,a mix. Mixing compromises. It has to.. The most cheap an reliable price fmknib I would say works ok, is the nocturn speed knob.

    The performance ust great. It wobbly. Knob wise, but I think none of the suff is meant w the idea of the build backgroundl of a console.

    It makes senses

    It's just very difficult to quantify.
     
  13. vibrations1951

    vibrations1951 Active Member

    I think I get what you are saying DVD and I had been considering using a Toft ATB 32 for my final console. I've been trying to follow what Chris, Bos and yourself have been describing about capturing the final mix to avoid excessive AD/DA conversions etc. into a separate/2nd DAW and this sounds like the way to build towards for the hybrid recording/mixing that would likely fit my felt-needs best. I'm not I/O format savvy enough to fully understand the specifics but I feel like I'm getting there. That's probably a big part of why I get bogged down trying to understand the capabilities and potential matches to my needs.

    As this thread continues it is helping me to fine tune what I think I'm trying to ask. It looks like what my questions now are, in an attempt to move towards hybrid recording/mixing and upgrade from my Mackie:

    1. Is there a 16 channel board/console/control surface (my present weakest link) that is of the caliber of the StudioLive/A&H/Toft that can function as a control surface for my present DAW that will allow me the ability to have the least AD/DA conversions in the signal path to final 2-bus capture at this time?

    2. Can this be done for $1-$2K?- without sacrificing the quality of what I have (minus the Mackie which I would likely save for live sound) that might be needed down the road. (Probably that last part cannot really be answered because who knows what's down the road.)

    Let me know if I'm on the wrong track here or going out into "left field'! Its looking to me more and more like the A&H is the right choice for me at this time, but I'm not sure.
    Please "keep those cards and letters coming" guys! Many thanks!
     
  14. vibrations1951

    vibrations1951 Active Member

    Hey K! Thanks for chiming in! I was typing while you wrote so I missed your input. Gotta go right now but I'll look over your post later see what your thoughts are. At first glance I am lost about the equipment you are referring to etc. Later!
     
  15. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    The thing about a board of this type (and the A+H Zed-R16 is not the only candidate) is that you have huge flexibility. As examples, when recording, you can route up to 16 raw tracks plus a 2-track mix digitally from the mixer to the DAW via FireWire, or you could take the insert sends as analog outputs from as many channels as you need and feed them into a separate converter such as your Aurora. When mixing, you could use the R16's own FireWire I/O to take up to 16 digital tracks replayed from your DAW and send the 2-track digital mix back to the DAW (same clock) or go analog via the Aurora. An upgrade would be to capture the mixer 2-track analog outs in a separate non-synchonized DAW as a two-box process, as we have already mentioned. Your Aurora and Big Ben would fit well here.

    Faders that are not being used in analog channels can be used as DAW control surface inputs. How effects and additional processing are added depends on what additional external hardware you have and the balance you need between those and plug-ins, but both can be used concurrently - it does not constrain you to one or the other.

    The main limitation of the Zed-R16 is what I mentioned in my earlier post - a hard limit of 16 channels. There are other mixers of this general type (analog mix with digital I/O option) that have more channels or can be expanded, but you would be looking at a considerably higher starting price.
     
  16. vibrations1951

    vibrations1951 Active Member

    Bos, it really looks like you have nailed it for me. Picking up a used Zed-R16 or perhaps financing a new one would first, solve my need for an upgrade in mixer, then address my control surface needs, make good use of what I have and lastly, enable my experience I want with hybrid. Then when I'm ready, and things have evolved in technology and available stuff, I will be in a better position to chose with greater insight and most importantly experience.

    As you said Bos , the only hard limit would be the 16 channels, which is not an issue for me right now. I'm a little apprehensive about how I would configure this all to my desires for work flow and all, yet I feel confident that I can get the help I need right here at RO. So unless others have thoughts to add, I feel like it's time to work this through my head more thoroughly and then figure out finances.
    Thanks so much to all of you for all the very thoughtful and comprehensive feedback!
     
  17. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    That sounds good. It's certainly worth sketching out block diagrams of your proposed separate recording and mixing schemes, just to check that you don't hit a whoops! moment. Things like the digital clocking can get a little complicated if you are using the R16 in conjunction with other digital devices, especially if you need to go to 96KHz.

    Mixing down as a hybrid system through the R16 is a delight, as the EQ is smooth and well-controlled. It's a shame they fitted only 80mm faders rather than 100mm, but that's a matter of getting used to them. Being essentially an analog mixer at heart, there are no built-in dynamics or effects. If you need these in your mixes, you will have to get them covered by other means. The R16 is also fairly light on AUX I/O, so it does pay to check that you can set it up in signal routing terms to meet your needs.
     
  18. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Although, I think he's off to a pretty good start with two LA2's, two 610's and a Drawmer dual gate. ;)

    While it may be light on Auggies, the A&H does have inserts on every channel, as well as on the master 2-bus, right? So, there's no immediate problem in using the OB processing he has, at least in terms of gain reduction or expansion.

    The other stuf - special FX processors like the Lexi, etc., might be a problem if Augs are limited, I guess it all depends on what his OB effects rack looks like...

    IMHO of course.

    d/

    :)
     
  19. dvdhawk

    dvdhawk Well-Known Member

    I don't think you could go wrong with a ZED set up JP. The A-H was quality pres and some other distinct advantages, especially in sample-rate, if that's a priority. If it functions as a control-surface too I can definitely see the huge value in that.

    I hope you understand that my input on the PreSonus was in no way trying to sell anything, or sway you one way or the other. I can only intelligently comment on the gear I have used. The truth is there aren't many brands I don't have access to, but I'm not here to sell stuff. I'm always willing to help a friend out, but since I've been around the only transactions I've done with anyone on RO were a mutually beneficial gear-swap with audiokid a few years ago, and I recently bought some Mogami 8-ch snake cable from J. Cucco when he moved west. In this case since my name was mentioned in association with the StudioLive (which I certainly appreciate), so I'm happy to weigh in specifically to point out what I know the SL can't do, in addition to the things it can do well. At one point, I wrote an in-depth StudioLive review in the RO blog section with all the pros and cons (as I saw them). It appears the blogs got lost in all the recent forum format changes and server swaps. The SL is a monster live sound and live recording console, with all its built-in DSP and simplicity. Sonically, I prefer it to any other mixer, or recording interface, that I have. For studio recording it has several noteworthy limitations, including a max. sample-rate of 48kHz, and the fact it cannot turn around and be a control-surface.

    I was very tempted to go the Toft route a few years ago too, but it would be somewhat redundant now. In addition to the SL 24.4.2 I already have a variety of mixers here from Soundcraft, Yamaha, and Mackie as well for different sized jobs, both live and recording. And if I'm being perfectly honest, if I had a couple thousand bucks laying around - I'd consider adding a ZED R16 to the toolbox too. But as you well know, when you're in the middle of a building you have to ask yourself, "do I NEEEEED this?, or would that 2 grand be put to better use advancing the building project?"

    All the best.
     
  20. vibrations1951

    vibrations1951 Active Member

    D...your input is greatly appreciated as is your honesty and integrity. It never crossed my mind that you were trying to do anything but help me decide. You demonstrate this on a consistent basis through the many threads you've posted to over the years. Wish you had a Zed for sale, I'd be at your door in no time! Would be great to have an excuse to come see your build!

    So how is the build progress on your end? I've been a bit stalled for many, many months waiting for my son-in-law to carve the time out to travel here and finish the HVAC. His intentions are pristine but life happens. The expense is all laid out already. Probably part of why I am more focused upon upgrading right now. It'something I can more or less control that will move me forward. It's my push-pull kind of process so when I can't be doing construction for one reason or another, I put my head up and try to advance my audio chops, and that usually leads to a gear upgrade. So, to be completely honest, do I NEEEEEED this? (nope...but in another way...yup).

    Gotta have some fun to keep the fire lit ya know! If I do this it will fill a lot of hours focusing on what I love and that is a need I think. I'll bet you get what I'm saying, and please have no doubt, I really appreciate your desire to help me keep things in perspective my friend. Sometimes I can get feeling like this whole thing will not be realized in this lifetime, so I'm gonna' grab the gusto as much as I can on the way. I don't even care if I sound a bit spoiled...I've worked hard for a lifetime, just like you and others here, and we deserve some fun.

    Donny, I have no real OB effects to speak of right now so it's not really a problem. As for the auxes, that has been on my mind as well as the whole monitoring and latency thing, especially with over-dubbing etc. That's a big part of why I need to operationalize this on paper quite a bit before committing, or being fitted for a tighty white new suit!!

    Bos, I don't really feel I would have the need to exceed or even likely need more than 88.2 so 96 would be just fine for now. And I'm a bit clueless about how clocking will play out until I start working through this but I somewhat get what you mean I think. But to just get started, some basic things that I need clarification on that I don't quite get from reading specs etc. are; what parameters/features of my Nuendo DAW will the Zed be able to control when utilized as a control surface and in what way? Would I be able to control features (plugins like compression if desired) of each DAW channel upon recording as well as mixing or just use the Zed inserts? Will I be able to control the plugins and their features as well?
    I'm guessing having all those features would be asking way too much within my reach right now huh?
     

Share This Page