Skip to main content
Pro Audio Community

Routing analog & digital audio between two DAWS

Hey all,

I'm doing the planning for my new system.
I have magix samplitude pro x, and I'm considering protools HD12.

Magix would be the main capture/compose/edit system due to high track count and clean coding.

PTHD would be primarily for mixing (mainly volumes and panning). Since it does 10 video tracks and 7.1 it's the unfortunate (expensive) choice.

Basically id like to pipe the edited audio from Sam into PTHD via the digital outs RME babyface -into- focusrite Scarlett 18i20.

I've been told in the past 'once it's digital, it's digital' but after learning I've seen there's room for coding and error rates.

I'm just curious if this is a 'safe way' to move essentially finished tracks into the mix daw. PTHD does 64 audio tracks/10 video tracks at 192k. This is where I'll combine the audio and video.

I alsk will have magix movie edit pro premium which handles 4 camera angles.

So I'll be piping audio and video from the magix to PTHD.

Eventually I'll be able to afford Sequoiawhich does many things particularly on the broadcasting side that I'd like. But I'm
About 3 years away from that.

Basically is there a better way to pipe audio over than re-recoding via the digital outs? Is simple drag and drop from my NAS drive better?

Is there a better software combo? A different method to do what I'm describing? I'm open to any ideas.

If PTHD isn't needed I'll get the regular version to open my old projects. It's only limited to 1 video track however.

Comments

Brother Junk Mon, 10/10/2016 - 11:42

kmetal, post: 442043, member: 37533 wrote: Lol I think I'll be up to 3 daws and 3-6 computers.

When you guys say that, do you mean (for example) PT x3? (fwiw, I don't think that's what guys mean)

So, if not...what is the benefit of using 3 different daws? You noted Samplitude has a high track count at 192khz...so why not just use Samplitude x3?

I'm not saying you should use the same daws...I'm wondering why one chooses not to?

audiokid Mon, 10/10/2016 - 12:29

Brother Junk, post: 442053, member: 49944 wrote: When you guys say that, do you mean (for example) PT x3? (fwiw, I don't think that's what guys mean)

So, if not...what is the benefit of using 3 different daws? You noted Samplitude has a high track count at 192khz...so why not just use Samplitude x3?

I'm not saying you should use the same daws...I'm wondering why one chooses not to?

3 DAW's seem a bit over the top but I will never say never! Being said though, the 3rd DAW could without doubt be used for VSTi support. I've though about this but in my particular workflow I don't use VSTi as much. (currently) I prefer to go outboard via keyboards using a Kronos X, Nord Lead4 and the MPC Renaissance for the drum programming.

I choose to use Sequoia for both DAW's, because I have that luxury and take this to the max. But, I also have AbletonLive in both DAW's as well. Why? Because I also like it and may want to do particular tasks that Ableton excels in.

I also may upgrade a basic license for Pro Tools but for nothing more than being able to import the exact tracks as what clients give me. It would be business reason only.
Pro Tools has nothing on Sequoia but because it is accepted as the industry standard DAW for professional studios, it can be an asset to say, just send me the PT files.

The common approach for me is to dedicate my mastering applications to DAW2. DAW2 replaces the 2 bus section of DAW 1. Remember that.
DAW 1, (2 bus > mastering section) is completely disabled. DAW1 is all about tracking and mixing down.
DAW2 is all about capturing the session and preparing it for upload etc. It is also what I use to compare a more detailed cause and effect of everything I do when it comes to learning.

The two together should ideally be uncoupled and have the ability to become an advanced learning platform where you can network files between each other.
Also note: for my particular approach, a dedicated monitoring system should also be able to switch independently from post to pre of both DAW's including online monitoring.

Multiple ways to monitor is a vital part of my workflow. Without that, I would be back to guessing and may well forget about the 2DAW approach. Relying on a basic monitor section that can only view DAW 1 for example, is like parallel parking a school bus without windows or side mirrors.
The more advanced monitor controller is like having a camera at the door way, inside, back of the bus and a drone outside.

kmetal Tue, 10/11/2016 - 15:46

Brother Junk, post: 442053, member: 49944 wrote: When you guys say that, do you mean (for example) PT x3? (fwiw, I don't think that's what guys mean)

So, if not...what is the benefit of using 3 different daws? You noted Samplitude has a high track count at 192khz...so why not just use Samplitude x3?

I'm not saying you should use the same daws...I'm wondering why one chooses not to?

Again we are talking seperate things, Chris explained his setup.

I want to use both mainly becuase PTHD does 7.1 and plays nice w avid media composer. Sam only does 5.1, and my license is for pro x until I grab the upgrade. It's reasonably priced but I've spent my alloted money on my software set for now, and just want to get going learning Sam before I upgrade.

My reason for Sam is its coding is clean, and it's editing is amazing, it's track count is high.

So I'll be composing in Sam w tons of tracks and vsti loaded, editing it all, then piping into PT for mixing/video integration, then once my mixes are set I'll be capturing those back to Samplitude.

If I find the PT thing not worth while I'll stick w Sam the whole way. But it does play nice w avid media composer so that's a big plus.

What I decide depends on audio quality and how each daw handles the computer resources I'm able to give it.

The reason I'm using a dedicated recording daw/session (not necessarily cpu at least from the get go) is becuase I want an extensive amount of vsti, amp sim, and effex readily available in standby. This is heavy on the cpu. Also having a lot of plugins and stuff active degrades the audio you hear back from the machine. So I want to compose and edit without load times and menu shifting, then I'll export the audio/midi (possibly) to a nice clean session that's got a much more simplified template setup for mixing. This eases cpu usage and doesn't clog the audio busses and reduces that phasey degradation from tons of plugins active.

I'm basically gonna compose and pre mix/edit in one session/daw, mix in the next clean one, and master in the last. This could be done on one or two machines, or more.

The main reason for multiple computers besides the nessary 2 for decoupled mix capture, is strictly for realtime performance of soft synths and amp sims.

The networked computers (vsl player / Ethernet) are at the mercy of the the host buffer sizes, so I want the host cpu to have as few instrument tracks and plugins as possible. Leaving all the processing to the vsti slaves computers, which are at low buffers, and at the mercy of its hardware.

The decoupled guitar amp sim computer is so I can run amp sims in realtime reguardless of how my buffers are in the daw. I'll pipe Audio Out of the amp sim cpu interface, into the daw, and monitor the amp sim in realtime via its dedicated interface. I'll play along to the daw and backing tracks via its own interface and speakers. That way everything is in sync, w zero latency, reguardless of buffer sizes in the daw. Also since I'll have a rack unit amp simulator, and various amp sims, only Guitar Rig runs at 192k, amplion, and gtr3, and amplitube, run at 96k. So I need to pipe them out analog and convert at the daw interface. Becuase my sessions will be 192.

Becuase the amp sim has its own decoupled interface and PC, I can leave the buffers at realtime, and hear my guitar in realtime w minimal latency. My backing tracks can have whatever buffers they need via the daw, it won't matter because I'll be playing to the daw tracks, to things will sync up. I just don't want latency thru my guitar, which is what I'd get if I simply loaded an amp sim pluggin in the daw. It would be effected by the buffer sizes which vary at different points in the project. I mute the guitar tracks I'm recording into the daw, and listen only thru the amp sim PC/speakers, this avoids latency from the daw. I hear my backing tracks via the daw PC/speakers at the same time. Latency isn't an issue, my and tracks sync, becuase I'm playing to the buffered tracks. So while stop and play buttons may have lag, they'll be no lining things up later due to bad sync, and good feel due to low latency.

I want to have free reign for last minute overdubs deep into a mix. Provided my daw can handle recording an audio track at even the largest buffer, I'll be good.

This all took a ton of thought and planning, and I'm really just testing the notion with the new setup. In theory it should work as described (unless I missed something).

The dedicated amp sim computer is no different than having your amp in the room, and playing along/recording to your daw, w the guitar track muted in the daw. So your guitar is coming thru the amp, the rest is coming thru your studio monitors.

It's when you get into higher buffer sizes like 512 that monitoring amp sims thru the daw mixer/speakers looses proper feel for me. I'm just taking it to the next level, by dedicating a PC and interface to virtual guitars. I sold all but one of my amps, and I love how good the new amp sims are sounding. I'll grab a couple real amps over time. But w instant recall and realtime performance in standalone modes amp sims have their positives.

Obviously there's still some latency and that depends on the interface and connetion type. But the RME interface I'm looking at is somewhere around 3ms if I recall so that's quick. Like I said I don't find latency unbearable till buffered of 512, which was somewhere around what 15ms or more on my old FireWire interface?

audiokid, post: 442054, member: 1 wrote: 3 DAW's seem a bit over the top but I will never say never

I don't operate any other way. Lol. I think in extremes. The dedicated vsti computers I think will be worthwhile, and having a dedicated video editing computer seems like a must if I plan on top notch (4/8k) video and audio.

The reason I subscribe to divide and conquer w the computers is becuase I think you get more done, vs one super computer. Like 4K for a new Mac or 4 i7 pcs w 32-64gb of ram cost about the same money give or take. I reckon I can do more w 4 pcs than one Mac Pro.

Also it allows me to stagger them so as they become obselete it's not a complete replacement. Every couple years I can move demote one to lesser duties. Or have it lets me keep one for longer that's doing something super basic like hosting a standalone guitar amp sim. I should get about 8 years out of even a dual core cpu in that role.

This multi cpu system is really an experiment to see what's best, and where the points of diminishing returns are.

So far I've only got two. A laptop for graphic design and office stuff, and a desktop for audio/video.

Next is a humble one for realtime guitar, or a i7 10 core or Xeon level for AV daw. At which point my current i5 gets moved to vsti.

Since everything is soft synths, I'd like to keep buffers low at all times.

I also want to follow the prince mentality and have the bulk of my stuf loaded and a simple 'track enable' away. I don't wanna be menu fishing.

This new setup isn't the ultimate in fidelity, but based around instant creativity. The fidelity will come in time.

audiokid, post: 442054, member: 1 wrote: Pro Tools has nothing on Sequoia but because it is accepted as the industry standard DAW for professional studios, it can be an asset to say, just send me the PT files.

The only feature PTHD has on sequioa is the ability to load 64 video tracks vs 1. It also can sync directly to avid media composer (via avid sync hardware :( )

Other than that sequoia absolutely smokes the others. My whole new rig was designed around 192k capability and Sam/seq are already supporting 384. Don't you know that drives my obsessiveness wild lol!

If I didn't spend(ing)so much money on my basic instruments/vsti/interfacing at this point, I would have just purchased sequioa even tho I got tremendous deals I'm still about 900$ in on drumagog and my synths and BFD.

PT is included in my (future) amp sim rack unit along w the ilok, the whole kit is 500. From there I'll use pt and Sam, and then decide on whether the PTHD license makes sense 1500, from certified retailer (vs 2500 from avid), or if I'll save and grab sequoia. There's a good chance I may end up w both, depending on how much video work I seem to be doing. Media composer is an amazing program.

Like you Chris the PT thing for me is partly to be up w 'industry standard'. The studios Disney have pt for a long time it it was annoying to say 'well we use DP...'

Frankly I've used almost all the DaW's out there and they're all pretty good.

I have old files from pt I need to move, so I'm gonna grab it while I can get the deal. If it's still obnoxious/unreliable like the old 7x version watever. If not I'll likely keep on with it. Partly.

audiokid, post: 442054, member: 1 wrote: Multiple ways to monitor is a vital part of my workflow. Without that, I would be back to guessing and may well forget about the 2DAW approach.

I think this is THE most overlooked part of you/boz's decoupled system.

Your keyboard collection is cool man! I'm going the software route to save space and have a larger variety of sounds available than I could afford otherwise.

My buddy has like 30 classic synths, and the hardware does sound richer.... But there's always compromises and vsti is it for me for now.

audiokid Tue, 10/11/2016 - 16:17

kmetal, post: 442093, member: 37533 wrote: So I'll be composing in Sam w tons of tracks and vsti loaded, editing it all, then piping into PT for mixing/video integration, then once my mixes are set I'll be capturing those back to Samplitude.

right on.

kmetal, post: 442093, member: 37533 wrote: Also it allows me to stagger them so as they become obselete it's not a complete replacement.

my thinking with everything modular now. Especially when it comes to converters and the interfacing. Which is the sole reason I left digi. I really loved Avid video back in the day but hate how they are making PT user hostage to their system. Everyone has their day, then something else show up. The world where we can move freely around with technology, is the world I follow. This is why I dropped Avid. They are chasing us in circles.

kmetal, post: 442093, member: 37533 wrote: The only feature PTHD has on sequioa is the ability to load 64 video tracks vs 1. It also can sync directly to avid media composer (via avid sync hardware :( )

Totally understandable. In fact, I have always wanted an Avid video system. I have no idea where they are today as that dream is on the back burner now.

I had no idea how many video tracks Sequoia can sync too. I didn't even think their was a limit. You say only one? I suppose they are expecting it to be a master production once its in Sequoia? Maybe they want you to buy Movie Edit Pro dead link removed
Or Video Pro X dead link removed
Not trying to sway you. I'm interested as well. Video has always intrigued me.

kmetal, post: 442093, member: 37533 wrote: My whole new rig was designed around 192k capability and Sam/seq are already supporting 384. Don't you know that drives my obsessiveness wild lol!

Lol, good on you. (y)

kmetal, post: 442093, member: 37533 wrote: I think this is THE most overlooked part of you/boz's decoupled system.

Indeed.
Although both Bos and I understand each other's goals, I go about some things differently. To my understanding he does not capture to a second DAW per-say. Where the second DAW with mastering capability is a big deal for me. I don't think Bos requires such an elaborate monitoring solution either. But we both like what the analog path is doing and having the ability to use the capture system for live SRC.

audiokid Tue, 10/11/2016 - 16:55

I can't believe how cheap this stuff is now. When I was looking at Avid Composer, I think the whole thing was like $20,000.00!
I must be missing something here.
This stuff is under $100.00 :unsure:

@bouldersound Keep in mind, Magix bought Sony's software yes? Boulder, you know much about the video side of this conversation?

Brother Junk Tue, 10/11/2016 - 17:39

audiokid, post: 442054, member: 1 wrote: I also may upgrade a basic license for Pro Tools but for nothing more than being able to import the exact tracks as what clients give me. It would be business reason only.
Pro Tools has nothing on Sequoia but because it is accepted as the industry standard DAW for professional studios, it can be an asset to say, just send me the PT files.

That's why I bought PT. Just bc every studio I went to (3), that's what they ran, and if I ever wanted to work in them, I needed to learn it. My first love was Ableton Live as a DJ. I still love a lot the drum sounds. Garage Band, Logic, ...a lil Cubase...a lot of Fruity Loops once Mac started dual boot, then PT. I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

Reaper, heard of it, but never tried it. Sequoia, Magix, Samplitude....I'd never even heard of them till I got here. Reaper is free, so I'll have to check that one out. As well as the others.

dvdhawk Tue, 10/11/2016 - 18:04

My first video editing software in the late 90's was by Avid. At a time when they dominated broadcast editing, (and before they absorbed the Digidesign line), Avid was king of the heap and offered everything from probably million dollar hardware/software systems for network TV - all the way down to a LE editor for people like me who wanted to try what was relatively new technology at the time coming to the masses.

In 2000 I bought V1.0 of Final Cut Pro and it wasn't cheap, but it paid for itself VERY quickly doing special interest videos for some local churches and schools. Like the guy in the video says, I liked it, it made sense to me, and fit the way I wanted to work. I used FCP and upgraded a few times up through FCP HD for 10-11 years until I hit a brick wall needing to upgrade computer and software at the same time. The demand for that kind of work had fallen off pretty dramatically by then - just like everyone dabbling in audio recording, so a huge investment didn't make sense. I'd already invested in Adobe CS5 and I had Premiere on the primary machine, and have edited the last few years on Premiere with no complaints.

Essentially, they are all about the same. I can say this though, this version of Premiere handles sweetening audio MUCH better than the last version of FCP HD I had. The last live show project I did though, I completely multi-tracked the audio into Capture, mixed on StudioOne, and then imported the 2 track mix into Premiere. It took longer to mix / edit, but not by much compared to fiddling around with the much more limited controls in Premiere - and still never getting a mix as good.

I'd be interested in trying Magix, but I'm pretty happy with Macs. I have a couple other older Windows machines running XP, but I don't imagine either are up to the task of video.

kmetal Tue, 10/11/2016 - 18:18

audiokid, post: 442095, member: 1 wrote: I really loved Avid video back in the day but hate how they are making PT user hostage to their system.

They're slowly getting the hint I think from all the rightful criticism by us earthling engineers. Avid has PTHD available as a standalone software for 1500 from audiodeluxe.com , and 2500 directly from avid. No avid hardware necessary.

Basically people were (legally) breaking up the avid hardware/software packages and selling the software on eBay. Which was legit. So I think avid saw there was a demand and supply that they weren't part of....

Avid hardware as far as the hdx card is still the lowest latentcy I/o available, and that's even w the onboard dsp (i belive). So it's. It like the their stuff is technically bad, it's state of the art. Even at $2700 it's not way to far out as far as price relative to a high end pcie card of other brands. If you figure the dsp then it's right on, w a pcie interface card plus dsp card.

It's really their interfaces that lack the quality for the price. And I think that native card is overpriced given its (modest) 1.7ms latency. Having that lock you into the digi link connector is no advantage to me. The whole reason it made sense was before avid opened PTHD as standalone, and asio compatible. Vs pt native card thunderbolt achieves similar spec.

More and more interfaces are digink connector compatible, which is cool. Focusrite red and burhl both are, so it apogee I belive, and Lynx. This makes using a digi pcie card make more sense than 'avid only'. Tho the new avid stuff is reguard we as sounding better, it still doesn't seem to compete w the other priced similarly units.

Still the hdx pcie card w the processing is the only one that makes sense cost vs benefit imho, but the lack of AAXdsp
Pluggin/vsti selection, really makes it 'too soon' again imho.

Shockingly if you have an iPad you can use the avid eucon protocol, control app, to control any eucon compatible software, Sam/seq and cubase among them. This is free! Shockingly. The eucon protocol is faster w higher resolution than the USB/midi hui controller protocal. So you get more precise control, and faster response. This is a welcome gift of for no other reason than the programmable sticky keys, of which you can have many, and assign them to common shortcuts you'd otherwise use a qwerty keyboard for. That alone is huge!

I sound like an acid spokesperson but I've been doing an absurd amount of research these past months, after years of not looking at what's new.

I think overall avid is still the most expensive overall and not necessarily the best for all users, but I think they have become a little more customer aware. I'm giving them a second chance, since I really never got taken for much of a ride. I got in an out of protools for a few hundred bucks, and had an interface that worked w avid and everything else.

audiokid, post: 442095, member: 1 wrote: Maybe they want you to buy Movie Edit Pro

That's exactly what I had in line. Then...

audiokid, post: 442099, member: 1 wrote: I can't believe how cheap this stuff is now

Could you belive how cheap the education version of media composer is!? $279. I was all set w magix, then I got the deal
Of a lifetime on the education version. I got media composer, the symphony color correction, and production toolkit add on, for 678$ total! Full on Hollywood level video production. 7.1 sound mixing AAX pluggin capability (so I can use all my aftermarket stuff) which I intentionally made sure was universal.

The options were magix which I thought was super cool and feature rich and affordable at. $150.

Final Cut Pro for 300 but Mac only

Or Adobe premier, which is subscription only.

So it was magix (Windows only) or media composer (Mac/win).

A $$450 differnce in price, but $100 differnce without the media composer add ons.

I went w the full suite of media composer. The only thing that's 'lite' relative to the non-academic version is the production toolkit which has a titling/transition pluggin removed. But it's $100 vs over 500 for the non academic.

Overall the whole media composer suite I got would be $2800, the academic version being 678. All things equal besides that production tool kit add on.

Soo I couldn't resist. Moree than I had in mind, so I had to put the fab filter bundle on hold. My thinking was if I'm gonna learn I may as well learn the Hollywood level thing, even if in the long run I use a different video editor.

I spent days and nights watching YouTube and reading and made my choice, it just looked way too cool.

Now of course it's 100-300 a year to keep the perpetual license up to date or you just love w the last version for as long as possible. Pricing depends on academic stays or not.

So that's my Video editor story. I'm so freakin excited. The power of video editors makes daw audio look archaic in some faucets.

I think maybe avid needed some time to turn digidesign up to their standards.

For instance media composer can take audio of various formats all in one session.
Which is one of my favorite standout features of sequioa.

If I needed to be 7.1 I can just import my PT regular season into media composer (although I had a hard time finding out if MC is 192k capable or not. I tend to think not) using the same plugins and it will save the automation via omf or whatever that protocal is named.

Avid has academic discounts for PT but not PTHD currently. Fingers crossed. But audio deluxe.com has pt regular for 399, and HD for 1499, which is much more competitive.

So maybe your kid or cousin or yourself is a student or teacher, if so there are a plethora of acedemic discounts out there for audio software.

As far as comercial use I'm not exactly sure how it works, but if i run into issues like that that's a good problem to have and I'll gladly shell out the few hundred bucks for the non academic license and transfer the project. But again I didn't look into that part of it much yet, becuase it's worth having either way. IMHO.

audiokid Tue, 10/11/2016 - 18:44

kmetal, post: 442102, member: 37533 wrote: Avid hardware as far as the hdx card is still the lowest latency I/o available, and that's even w the onboard dsp (i believe).

kmetal, post: 442102, member: 37533 wrote: It's really their interfaces that lack the quality for the price.

(Edited to say my point clearer)
and as technology advances, the boutique arena will lead. I believe converters and interfacing hold the key to the open market of pro audio. Having a recording system based around an interface that hoards the power to control my entire plug-in and ADC workflow, that conveniently requires continuous upgrade because it is designed unable to work with the next crop of computers scare the hell out of me. Actually more like, I know better after using a DAW system that works the opposite, where is does not require additional DPS to work just fine.
As computers advance, a simple upgrade has been the norm all that is required.

If my ADC date, a simple upgrade are purchase can also take place. I don't have to replace the entire rig and software.
The life expectancy for my system is a decade at least, if not until I simple want new again. Pro Tools has always been around 18 months, then the big hype to trade in and so it goes. Support of purchase marketing.

I keep asking this over and over. How many EQ do we need to mix well recorded music? I just don't get it.
Unless we are making special effects all day long, I just don't get why we need so many add-ons running in the background, connected to the backdoor store lol. Talk about marketing.
Keep updating the bloat your whole life. Even if you don't want to, you have to because the software is effected by other software that requires the cards that interface with a dated computer, thus always on the brink of being outdated. Updating of code fucks up your smooth system sooner or later. Its a total money pit.

End of rant :)

kmetal, post: 442102, member: 37533 wrote: I sound like an acid spokesperson but I've been doing an absurd amount of research these past months, after years of not looking at what's new.

I'm really enjoying your journey here and following quite closely. I'm forever follow leading trends and sonic advancement.
Keep sharing as you go. I did the same as I was building my system too. I'm also on the march to build a new rig.

kmetal, post: 442102, member: 37533 wrote: So that's my Video editor story. I'm so freakin excited. The power of video editors makes daw audio look archaic in some faucets.

I think I can speak for the majority here, we are excited for you too. :love:

kmetal Tue, 10/11/2016 - 21:08

Brother Junk, post: 442100, member: 49944 wrote: Reaper is free, so I'll have to check that one out. As well as the others.

Reaper has nice clean code. It's menu system is kinda outdated feeling, at least a few years ago when I was using it for a little while. Beyond that it's great.

dvdhawk, post: 442101, member: 36047 wrote: Like the guy in the video says, I liked it, it made sense to me, and fit the way I wanted to work. I used FCP a

I found fcp to be very confortable. It woulda been my first choice overall. I was familiar w DaW's, and the teacher did an hour demonstration on it, and I made a video on it start to Dvd, first shot. It was super easy. I got an A+ on the video, and it won runner up at an ametuer contest.

I wonder if they all (nle's)do the same thing equally as well as far as processing encoding Ect. Kinda how DaW's sound subtly different, and built in effects range in quality??

As far as Adobe audio, I'll put audition 2.0 up against any daw of today and bet the coding is as clean or cleaner and the stock effects are as good or better. Adobe does audio well. They had spectral veiw in 2001ish. Audition was originally 'cool edit pro' then Adobe bought it. I still talk about how good the stock plugins are lol it's 12 years later.

dvdhawk Tue, 10/11/2016 - 21:41

During cut editing in the NLE, it shouldn't do anything at all to the video's integrity. If you start tweaking the image traits [Brightness, Contrast, Hue, Keying, etc.], then you're definitely opening yourself up to a bunch of algorithms and more potential artifacts. Rendering image trait changes can also take a looooong time. It's always to your benefit to shoot good, well-lit video. I think your final video output quality is going to be all about the codecs. There are a few uncompressed formats and scores of compression variants, and you almost always have to render it into something different if you're going to print it to DVD, BluRay, web, etc., which can also be time consuming.

Burning to DVD isn't that bad, but creating a pro quality menu and chapters set-up is a colossal PITA (for me anyway). I used DVD Studio Pro for DVD authoring when I was using FCP, and now I'm using Encore with Premiere - to take advantages of the way they're integrated with one another. (yet still a colossal PITA). To be fair, if I did it more than 3-4 times per year I'd probably be a lot better at it.

kmetal Tue, 10/11/2016 - 22:10

audiokid, post: 442103, member: 1 wrote: how many EQ do we need to mix well recorded music

0 it's really well recorded! Lol all in all I think 3 is good to have. Transparent/surgical, broadband character, and utilitarian.

I agree w you on the pluggin things, I'm giving it a shot w select after market stuff. The big reason I put so much upfront in the software is to avoid the new installs every week. My logic is I'll grab all the vsti and plugs at once, install, get whatever versions and all that playing nice, and then leave things alone.

I see very little reason so update plugins, and honestly DaW's only once in a while come out w truly gotta have features in the updates.

Every new update comes w bugs.

To be honest I'm not a heavy user on DaW's. I basically use them like tape machines that don't require razor blades. I don't use 3/4 of the features.

Is still be just fine w any daw I've had since 2001. Object based editing is something unique. Clip gain has been around forever. Automation, all that. I barely automate. Most of my best mixes are static.

When I added up the investment I've made in ozone and waves it's around 1k, which is fair. I've got all my fav waves and the ozone production 2 bundle which I scored for 423$. That's just for mixing/mastering not vsti which is another 1k ish. Again, cherry picked.

So you take that off the price of sequioa, now sequioa is only 2k which is within $500 of PTHD, but has an amazing set of broadcast features, object editing, 12ch surround, 384k support, various file type support on the same session, networking, it just does so much more.

I basically have 2-3 channel strips, 3-4 eqs, 2 limiters, and 6 compressors, and 3 limiters.

Not counting stock stuff that's plenty, along w some other delays and what not.

TBH I'm not sure why I went the route I did. I don't feel it's superior or inferior, certainly more admisitrative work on the front end.

I think the main thing was I am comfortable with all that stuff, and have just wanted it for my own for so long it had to be fuffilled.

That and I wanted to really spend time w Sam before I went w sequoia, i may find Sam does everything I need, or I might not like it at all. DP is the only daw so far I really didn't enjoy using overall, but even that had some nifty things to it. I found it a bit buggy, and some things were long winded and clumsy vs other DaW's.

So I've left whatever money I get for the mackies and 414 assigned to the 'flagship' daw once i get my old audio archived via pt/Sam.

My instruments collection is in my opinion well rounded and high quality between UVI stuff I posted, BFD, and vsl. There's a couple sonivox vsti's, a killer piano, and some drums percussion. Sonivox is definitely hifi stuff (a lot of it) and their out of Boston which is cool to me. I recently discovered there stuff on sale and grabbed 5-6 $10 things that sounded killer.

Drumagog rounds it off w audio to midi and triggering/plugging hosting. Again on sale finally!!!!

I want the fabfilter stuff. Which I put on hold becuase ozone was so cheap. Honestly they (ozone) have this vocal synth pluggin that's exactly what I do to my voice effects wise all in one. and that really sold me on the bundle.

I cherry picked the BFD and its add ins $50% off.

So I dunno, I like to feel like software wise I don't need or want much more.

I like the idea that sequioa is all inclusive. I also like that my plugins work in any daw. I would feel fine not partaking in the upgrade plans. Daw or plugins.

3k seems like a large pill to swallow, but when you add it all up, upfront it's about equal give or take. Long run sequioa is probably cheaper and less headaches.

I like to feel as the 'cheap half Frenchmen' i am, I did okay monetarily. (All my friends and x girlfriends will confirm my innate thrift :))The key to my purchasing was waiting for sales and having the money available when they were. That and having a list and sticking mostly to it. Overall I paid about 50-30% less than typical retail, with some 70% discounts thrown in. The patience and knowing exactly which specific plugs/vsti I wanted allowed me to stay efficient w money, and maximize the resulting performance.

Overall the most essintal would be Rcomp/eq, a limiter, and the Hcomp. I love those. The rest were just for some variety.

TBH my requirements of cross platform/192k operation did a lot of elimination for me.

I'd be perfectly happy w magix movie edit pro, I have no doubts. I just kinda ya know, wanted what the 'big guys' use becuase I could actually afford it this time.

I don't belive that it's necessarily superior or I'll even like it, but the pricing is for a somewhat limited period so I gave it a shot.

Ramble off.

Lol still left $ for the babyface pro, and the yammy 5's. The scarelett is on hold until I either need more channels for surround/summing i.e. Have speakers and the summing box, or ideally will be able to get something Better.

The ISA is on the list. And some sure and cascade mics round it out.

Good to go w modest computers, solid vsti effects, mics, and decent (not great) pro conversion for about 5k. With very few holes, and a planned expansion/onbselwnce map.

Ramble off again.

kmetal Tue, 10/11/2016 - 22:27

dvdhawk, post: 442105, member: 36047 wrote: If you start tweaking the image traits [Brightness, Contrast, Hue, Keying, etc.], then you're definitely opening yourself up to a bunch of algorithms and more potential artifacts.

Lol I want my instructional videos to look like lions gate films.

Apparently the symphony option contains the secondary color correction, and stuff like that. It's deeper than what's available in MC by itself.

dvdhawk, post: 442105, member: 36047 wrote: I think your final video output quality is going to be all about the codecs.

That's what was included in the production bundle, codecs for different formats.

I'm so green to NLE Injust got the whole basic package. I'm sure I grabbed some unecessary things or stuff I won't ever use, but i figured I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

I'm guessing even what I have is 'run of the mill' realative to what's available in each sector. But ya know I had to start somewhere. If I can't do a tutorial or documentry with what I have, it ain't the tools, it's the tool making it :)

Do people still watch things on blue rAy or Dvd disc? That's not completely sarcastic. I didn't really think about menus, or disc authoring. I kinda just assumed digital/non disc delivery... Should I be concerned. Lol does that mean another couple hundred?

audiokid Tue, 10/11/2016 - 22:28

kmetal, post: 442106, member: 37533 wrote: My logic is I'll grab all the vsti and plugs at once, install, get whatever versions and all that playing nice, and then leave things alone.

wise

kmetal, post: 442106, member: 37533 wrote: I want the fabfilter stuff.

love the limiter for masters

kmetal, post: 442106, member: 37533 wrote: I cherry picked the BFD and its add ins $50% off.

BFD rocks.

kmetal Tue, 10/11/2016 - 22:56

Lol this was $10 at the store the other day. I was an hour away from so, I gambled, figuring I was in reality purchasing a cheeseball effect.

Suprisingly it's pretty cool, to my ears has some decent sound to it. It's a small software company, but I'm happy w the purchase. Not center stage quality, but I think useful enough to merit. I'm finding w amp sims it like one has a good marshall, the other a good whatever, the other a good 5150. It seems like there's only a couple good solid amps from each company's bundles. Anyway worth checking out if your bored.

Boswell Wed, 10/12/2016 - 07:37

audiokid, post: 442095, member: 1 wrote: Although both Bos and I understand each other's goals, I go about some things differently. To my understanding he does not capture to a second DAW per-say. Where the second DAW with mastering capability is a big deal for me. I don't think Bos requires such an elaborate monitoring solution either. But we both like what the analog path is doing and having the ability to use the capture system for live SRC.

Chris has got the right broad picture, but I don't have a fixed mix setup - how I set it up depends on the material I am mixing. What is consistent is the two-box arrangement: a digital source box, analogue mixer and then uncoupled digital capture box. The source box can be either a pair of Alesis HD24XRs or a DAW with the tracks already transferred. The capture box can be another DAW, a stand-alone 2-track recorder or multiple tracks on another HD24XR, the stereo pairs differing, for example, in compression threshold.

Flexibility of monitoring is key, as Chris mentioned, and I have the monitoring routing set up so I can tap into any of the points in the journey of the signal from raw tracks to finished mix.

Where I differ from Chris is that I deliberately do not perform pro-level mastering, since I am a firm believer in having another set of ears employed at the mastering level. However, recently I've been doing more finishing of rough mixes, particularly of MP3s, as clients have said that the streaming sites that are the intended destination of the mixes "do their own mastering". Take that whatever way you want.

dvdhawk Wed, 10/12/2016 - 08:29

Kyle, you may not need to print DVDs, I do though.

My video clientele needs physical DVDs (and musicians still want CDs) often in quantity, so I have a Bravo on-disc inkjet printer and a simple 1:5 duplicator tower (again, they've paid for themselves over and over again). Short run duplication still makes sense at the local level. Anything above about 500 units is better sent off for full replication, but there is some money to be made doing smaller quantities. 300 units is about the tipping point where you need to weigh your options. My customers often want DVDs they can sell, or give away at trade shows, etc. and only need 50-200. If I'm packaging DVDs or CDs, I use Photoshop / InDesign to layout the artwork, and then take them to the local printing/litho house for printing and cutting, and then assemble everything here. Letting a professional do the printing is the only way it's practical for me. Not only can he print them for less than I'd spend on ink; it's a superior print, on superior heavy paper stock, and he's got the machine that can cut the whole stack at once to the 1/10,000 of an inch accuracy faster than I could hack one out with a standard paper cutter.

audiokid Wed, 10/12/2016 - 09:26

Boswell, post: 442113, member: 29034 wrote: Where I differ from Chris is that I deliberately do not perform pro-level mastering, since I am a firm believer in having another set of ears employed at the mastering level.

Thanks for chiming in and sharing, Bos. To clarify, we are on the same page here as well.
I share the same principles in regards to pro-level mastering. I am a firm believer in having another set of ears employed at the mastering level too.(y) When tracking or mixing, if a client has the budget, I would always recommend a pro-level Mastering Engineer to finish up their work.

That being said, if that option was waved, I may take on that challenge. My DAW system meets world class sonics which will not degrade the path. In fact, if I was provided 96k tracks, real time SRC (DAW1 > AD> DAW 2, would sound better to my ears over bouncing down. To my ears capturing at the destination SR still sounds better when its done in real time which takes two DAW's. Even better if both have mastering capability specs.

It would be fun to do a (SRC) sample rate conversion shoot here one day. Maybe when I finish up this next DAW build, we could challenge a pro-level ME to participate in that. (y)

Boswell, post: 442113, member: 29034 wrote: Chris has got the right broad picture, but I don't have a fixed mix setup - how I set it up depends on the material I am mixing

Same. Which is why the dedicated monitoring controller is so vital. Two uncoupled DAW's with an independent monitoring controller removes the shackles of having anything fixed :)