For me, gain staging is gain staging, regardless of whether it's analog or digital. The difference with digital is that these days, due to the advancements/improvements made in bit resolution and conversion, we can get by with much lower input levels - unlike the days of tape, when we intentionally printed as hot as we could, to masque the inherent noise of tape, as well as taking advantage of "that sound" that came with tape saturation.

But ... regardless, with both formats, there's still a gain structure to respect, in that we don't want to overdrive one link while under-driving another.
Analog could be more forgiving, whereas digital lets you know pretty quickly - and in some very nasty and audible ways - when you're screwin' the pooch. ;)

Actually, these days when I'm mixing, I'm going for a LUFS/RMS of around -20 to -23db, with true peaks not exceeding -6 to -8db. Keep in mind that I'm not doing my own mastering as some others here are, so I'm doing my best to give the M.E. as much room as possible to work with, and preserving as much of the dynamic range that I can.

The days of having to record digital signals @ "as close to 0db as possible" - without any "overs" - in order to take advantage of every last bit on a 20 bit machine are long gone... ( unless of course you are still tracking to ADATS or DA88's)...

As long as you are getting nice clarity on your tracks, without noise ( due to lack of gain on a pre) and no distortion (unless you are intentionally going for a particular controlled harmonic distortion through the use of tube mics, tube pre's, or trannie-based preamps) then you should be fine recording at the levels you are. Although, I think if you asked most guys working in DAW-Land, they'd probably tell you that they are usually shooting for an RMS of around -16 to -14, with peaks not exceeding -6db. This amount varies, of course. Some print hotter, others, like myself, print much lower.

As far as what kind of signal you are printing, again, it differs depending on whom you talk to. There are some who prefer to print with color, yet others choose to print as transparently as possible, and then if they desire coloration, they add it afterwards through the use of certain ITB processors.

In the end, only you can determine which really serves you best. For me, the perfect gain chain would be to have 3 options: a good tube pre (which I have), a nice transformer-based pre ( which I also have) and a pristine sounding, uber transparent pre, such as a Millennia, Great River or Grace - which I don't have. - yet. ;)

The way I see it, having these three types to choose from would give me the best of "all" worlds ... a collection that I could pick and choose from, depending on what sound I was after, and based on the style of what I was recording at that time.

IMHO of course. ;)

vibrations1951, post: 430771, member: 34341 wrote: Chris, you are so right about having a great monitor like the ST to do comparing. Right now, during tracking I can monitor my mixer before DAW 1, my DAW 1 off the Aurora, and Daw 2 from the Pure 2, all at the push of a button! Comparing heaven for me!

Indeed! There is nothing like this. The Dangerous Monitor ST changed the game for me. It has been the single most important piece of gear I've purchased in 30 years. Now you will start learning what is BS and truth in your mixes and the way it travels.

vibrations1951, post: 430771, member: 34341 wrote: Has your Folcrom arrived yet?

Not yet, its in transit.
I am so busy up to 2016, I doubt I will even have a moment to start working with my new studio until then. Rethinking what to buy next is about all I can do. But its fun!

vibrations1951, post: 430771, member: 34341 wrote: The challenging trick for me at this point is developing proper gain staging for my multiple signal paths.

As Donny said.

But, to add a bit, you will soon discover how valuable it is to have variable level settings on your DA side, especially if you start mixing for people. Why?
Not everyone has the same track levels, some are way too hot, others way too low so being able to gain stage your DA stems is really helpful.
As you work with this, you'll begin to understand it all.
The best thing you did for yourself was to get the monitor controller. This business is all about hearing. You just made your life better. You will become a mentor now. The ST teaches you how to hear.

audiokid, post: 430762, member: 1 wrote: Now this is interesting. Dangerous Music has discontinued making the 2-Bus.
http://www.dangerousmusic.com/products/2-bus-0

If DM was thinking like me, they would make a 32 channel version, with the Monitor ST and Convert included.

These summing boxes are missing the ability to simply connect your DAW to them and start stem mixing. By including an independent monitor controller (yes it could be included) , they would serve themselves well because people would soon learn how this improves the entire experience of OTB mixing.
My hybrid system wasn't complete until I took a chance and got the DM ST. If I didn't know these guys, I would not have asked them to send me one, thus I may have never learned what the Dangerous experience was truly all about.

I'm hoping they are planning something new like this!

The Crane Song Egret http://www.cranesong.com/egret.html is what I am thinking for Dangerous but this is imho, way overpriced in today's market. http://vintageking.com/crane-song-egret
Also, all the added bloat in the Egret is a complete waste for me.

I would hope they would avoid faders should they be coming up with something like the Neos. I never used my faders, panning or any of the master section on the Neos. The DAW gets all that done better. The panning however was important to center so I would want a console that was really well calibrated. The Neos I had, did exceptionally well there. I had it custom built with non center panning notch's. I could dial the center in surgically.

The perfect summing amp for me would be 16 stereo channels, all with mono options like the Folcrom fitted with stellar DA to match channel count. If it could switch as a passive system, even better.

Being said, I doubt I would ever go that route again but it would have been a definite system I would have looked at last year. .

DonnyThompson, post: 430773, member: 46114 wrote: For me, gain staging is gain staging, regardless of whether it's analog or digital. The difference with digital is that these days, due to the advancements/improvements made in bit resolution and conversion, we can get by with much lower input levels - unlike the days of tape, when we intentionally printed as hot as we could, to masque the inherent noise of tape, as well as taking advantage of "that sound" that came with tape saturation.

But ... regardless, with both formats, there's still a gain structure to respect, in that we don't want to overdrive one link while under-driving another.
Analog could be more forgiving, whereas digital lets you know pretty quickly - and in some very nasty and audible ways - when you're screwin' the pooch. ;)

Actually, these days when I'm mixing, I'm going for a LUFS/RMS of around -20 to -23db, with true peaks not exceeding -6 to -8db. Keep in mind that I'm not doing my own mastering as some others here are, so I'm doing my best to give the M.E. as much room as possible to work with, and preserving as much of the dynamic range that I can.

The days of having to record digital signals @ "as close to 0db as possible" - without any "overs" - in order to take advantage of every last bit on a 20 bit machine are long gone... ( unless of course you are still tracking to ADATS or DA88's)...

As long as you are getting nice clarity on your tracks, without noise ( due to lack of gain on a pre) and no distortion (unless you are intentionally going for a particular controlled harmonic distortion through the use of tube mics, tube pre's, or trannie-based preamps) then you should be fine recording at the levels you are. Although, I think if you asked most guys working in DAW-Land, they'd probably tell you that they are usually shooting for an RMS of around -16 to -14, with peaks not exceeding -6db. This amount varies, of course. Some print hotter, others, like myself, print much lower.

As far as what kind of signal you are printing, again, it differs depending on whom you talk to. There are some who prefer to print with color, yet others choose to print as transparently as possible, and then if they desire coloration, they add it afterwards through the use of certain ITB processors.

In the end, only you can determine which really serves you best. For me, the perfect gain chain would be to have 3 options: a good tube pre (which I have), a nice transformer-based pre ( which I also have) and a pristine sounding, uber transparent pre, such as a Millennia, Great River or Grace - which I don't have. - yet. ;)

The way I see it, having these three types to choose from would give me the best of "all" worlds ... a collection that I could pick and choose from, depending on what sound I was after, and based on the style of what I was recording at that time.

IMHO of course. ;)

Great post Donny! Just the kind of thing I was looking for. There are many methods and opinions out there and trying different levels to start with has been interesting but frustrating at times and it's good to know what someone I respect and trust is doing. I do get hooked easily on old habits getting a chain I can crank to the max when needed, mostly due to doing live sound reinforcement.

Needing to use so much digital now, even with hybrid arrangements, is the same but different and I really do need to adopt the less is more attitude. It's more about trusting the math over doing my old automatic defaults and learning new ones! From what I think you are saying, I feel you are right that it really is the same as analog , but slightly and importantly different as well.

This two box rig is very exciting and I wanted to be sure I'm building my gain properly from the start to end, especially with so many more options now and the power of the ST for monitoring. Uncoupling is sooooo cool for me right now. Can't wait to try my UA 2-610 after the Folcrom next! I get what you mean by "the perfect gain chain" and the 3 pre options. This is a whole new level for me and I'm diggin' it!

Right now I'm having to finish plumbing the bathroom for the studio and then tile the floor and walls in there. I hate plumbing and have never done tile work so I've been putting this off for a while. Time to bite the bullet though I'd rather be playing around with my new rig!! Push pull all the time...sigh.

Thanks Donny. By the way, I'm loving the thread you started on sample rates others use! I'm lurking lots and trying to keep up with the thread. Good stuff for me right now and pushing my learning curve in a really good way!

audiokid, post: 430778, member: 1 wrote: Indeed! There is nothing like this. The Dangerous Monitor ST changed the game for me. It has been the single most important piece of gear I've purchased in 30 years. Now you will start learning what is BS and truth in your mixes and the way it travels.

Not yet, its in transit.
I am so busy up to 2016, I doubt I will even have a moment to start working with my new studio until then. Rethinking what to buy next is about all I can do. But its fun!

As Donny said.

But, to add a bit, you will soon discover how valuable it is to have variable level settings on your DA side, especially if you start mixing for people. Why?
Not everyone has the same track levels, some are way too hot, others way too low so being able to gain stage your DA stems is really helpful.
As you work with this, you'll begin to understand it all.
The best thing you did for yourself was to get the monitor controller. This business is all about hearing. You just made your life better. You will become a mentor now. The ST teaches you how to hear.

Well Chris I don't know about mentor but I'll be more than happy to share my experiences. I gotta get some time on this all before I even can ask questions that make sense! I've already exposed some stages in my set up that need tweaking and cleaning up. I can see all the more how this is something that will never end and in my mind that's a really good thing. At the same time I can see how settling on the foundational structural pieces and work flow I'm trying to setup now is paramount to anchor my future signal chains and workflow.

Many thanks to you and others here for providing direct and indirect experiences, ideas and suggestions. As I get less fearful of my Newbiness (Damn ego) and more chops and learning on board you guys and this forum become that much more important to me. In my experience, the knowledge, expertise, openness, willingness and real caring here is unsurpassed.
Namaste

Oh ya, this was just posted:
http://dangerousmusic.com/news-and-press/143-next-gen-dangerous-music-2-bus-analog-summing-unveiled-at-sweetwaters-gearfest

Next-Gen Dangerous Music “2-BUS+” Analog Summing Unveiled

Fort Wayne, Indiana — June 12, 2015 — Dangerous Music, who revolutionized digital mixing with the original 2-BUS analog-summing mixer, has redefined summing again with the ground-up redesign of the Dangerous 2-BUS+. The unveiling ceremonies will be conducted at Sweetwater’s GearFest in Fort Wayne, Indiana with engineer/producer Fab Dupont officiating.

Dangerous Music pioneered the dedicated rack-mounted analog summing device for the back-end of any digital audio workstation in the late 1990s, and the Dangerous 2-Bus proceeded to take its place as the industry standard solution for the analog/digital mixing workflow.

Bob Muller, President of Dangerous Music says, “We went with a clean slate when designing the new 2-BUS+ while at the same time retaining the sonic feel and identity that made the original 2-BUS legendary. We managed to beat the original design specs and achieve superior crosstalk, distortion and noise floor performance for even greater imaging, punch and center focus. Two years of exhaustive experimentation and development yielded the three unique on-board audio processors that infuse color and tone to individual stems or to the stereo mix, with the simple push of a button and twist of a knob. At Dangerous we believe tonal coloration is an artistic choice that varies greatly from project to project. The 2-Bus+ allows the engineer to be selective about when, where and how to apply color as opposed to a sonically one-dimensional box forcing itself on every mix. We craft tools to empower the artist.”

The new 2-BUS+ is a 2-space rack-unit, 16-channel analog-summing mixer, with both XLR and D-sub inputs. New innovative features include 3 separate custom audio processors to add tone and color to mixes. The ‘Harmonics’ processor is a tuned harmonic distortion generator executed in parallel-processing mode with a blend control, ‘Paralimit’ is a FET limiter on stun, also in parallel mode. Both of these processors can be applied across the stereo mix, or on a pair of stems. ‘X-Former’ inserts a pair of custom transformers on the stereo mix and has a control for core saturation. All three tone controls can be active at once, and the order of signal flow through distortion and limiting can be flipped.

The new Dangerous 2-Bus+ (…pronounced “Two Bus Plus”) is expected to be available through dealers worldwide in Q3 2015; the street price is $2,999. US.

audiokid, post: 430963, member: 1 wrote: Oh ya, this was just posted:
http://dangerousmusic.com/news-and-press/143-next-gen-dangerous-music-2-bus-analog-summing-unveiled-at-sweetwaters-gearfest

Next-Gen Dangerous Music “2-BUS+” Analog Summing Unveiled

Fort Wayne, Indiana — June 12, 2015 — Dangerous Music, who revolutionized digital mixing with the original 2-BUS analog-summing mixer, has redefined summing again with the ground-up redesign of the Dangerous 2-BUS+. The unveiling ceremonies will be conducted at Sweetwater’s GearFest in Fort Wayne, Indiana with engineer/producer Fab Dupont officiating.

Dangerous Music pioneered the dedicated rack-mounted analog summing device for the back-end of any digital audio workstation in the late 1990s, and the Dangerous 2-Bus proceeded to take its place as the industry standard solution for the analog/digital mixing workflow.

Bob Muller, President of Dangerous Music says, “We went with a clean slate when designing the new 2-BUS+ while at the same time retaining the sonic feel and identity that made the original 2-BUS legendary. We managed to beat the original design specs and achieve superior crosstalk, distortion and noise floor performance for even greater imaging, punch and center focus. Two years of exhaustive experimentation and development yielded the three unique on-board audio processors that infuse color and tone to individual stems or to the stereo mix, with the simple push of a button and twist of a knob. At Dangerous we believe tonal coloration is an artistic choice that varies greatly from project to project. The 2-Bus+ allows the engineer to be selective about when, where and how to apply color as opposed to a sonically one-dimensional box forcing itself on every mix. We craft tools to empower the artist.”

The new 2-BUS+ is a 2-space rack-unit, 16-channel analog-summing mixer, with both XLR and D-sub inputs. New innovative features include 3 separate custom audio processors to add tone and color to mixes. The ‘Harmonics’ processor is a tuned harmonic distortion generator executed in parallel-processing mode with a blend control, ‘Paralimit’ is a FET limiter on stun, also in parallel mode. Both of these processors can be applied across the stereo mix, or on a pair of stems. ‘X-Former’ inserts a pair of custom transformers on the stereo mix and has a control for core saturation. All three tone controls can be active at once, and the order of signal flow through distortion and limiting can be flipped.

The new Dangerous 2-Bus+ (…pronounced “Two Bus Plus”) is expected to be available through dealers worldwide in Q3 2015; the street price is $2,999. US.

audiokid . Oh My!!! Now that is impressive. I have no doubt it would fit nicely into my chain. That said, it does a lot of "tricks" all at once that I can repatch and accomplish with the Folcrom and my pres right now. So if I were to price out the pres at double duty, my cost and flexibility is lower overall.

Of course this doesn't take into account the variables like quality, ease of switching and use. They certainly have created an all in one rig and I'll be anxious to hear some actual experience of users down the road. I like where this is all going and I feel more in control of my mixes with the uncoupled 2 DAW rig. I continue to notice subjective improvements to my ear and environment with added flexibility and choices. Yes, they are often subtle but so what! These improvements are additive and leave me feeling more in control as well....I like that! If I feel more in control I feel it translates into better work on my part and an improved overall product I can create.

I'm glad in a way that I have the overall time before my studio construction is done and I can continue to experiment before I'm tied to deadlines for clients. Couple more years to fine tune this and who knows by then where the industry and me will be at?? Glad I'm on the train!

vibrations1951, post: 430973, member: 34341 wrote: I like where this is all going and I feel more in control of my mixes with the uncoupled 2 DAW rig.

Exactly
The comparison learning you can do with this is invaluable. I like to think of this as a hydraulic hoist compared to a grease pit or bumper jacks lol.

vibrations1951, post: 430973, member: 34341 wrote: Glad I'm on the train!

Everyone should have two DAW's ;)

vibrations1951, post: 430973, member: 34341 wrote: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/] . Oh My!!! Now that is impressive. I have no doubt it would fit nicely into my chain. That said, it does a lot of "tricks" all at once that I can repatch and accomplish with the Folcrom and my pres right now. So if I were to price out the pres at double duty, my cost and flexibility is lower overall.

I've owned a few summing consoles. The one that was the most useful was actually not even considered a summing console, it was the Dangerous Master. But, after extensive testing, Sequoia on the second DAW rendered it unnecessary.
Other than specs... these devices all do the same thing for me, which is... provide a way to insert outboard gear and bridge a mix to a capture device. At first I thought it was all about inserting as much gear as I could muster up and stop using plug-ins. API 2500 for a drum stem, LA2A for bass, etc...
To my surprise, it became less about the gear and more about a workflow. All I invested in can be emulated ITB and better.
The Folcrom might be all I need, if even that. The biggest attribute besides the invaluable workflow between two DAW's is the analog pass and ability to avoid bouncing. The rest is all about the workflow. So what I'm basically saying is other than the method to how you bridge between the two DAW's, analog mixing and master gear is a serious waste of money to me. :sleep:

This new 2-bus+ looks really cool. Its reminds me of the Liaison, which is something I also considered as a summing box but bought the SSL XPatch instead because I needed a more automated way to route hardware between inserts.

Found a video on it. Mitch sure does a great job .
Looking at this, I'm not sure I like it as much as the original. Seems like too much unnecessary in it now. I love the idea of a tranny but not a Cinemag tranny...

It looks well made. I like the backside.
Kind of disappointing but I'm sure it has a user base looking for the added features.

audiokid, post: 430995, member: 1 wrote: Found a video on it. Mitch sure does a great job .
Looking at this, I'm not sure I like it as much as the original. Seems like too much unnecessary in it now. I love the idea of a tranny but not a Cinemag tranny...

It looks well made. I like the backside.
Kind of disappointing but I'm sure it has a user base looking for the added features.

For me, even at my stage of development, my first reaction remains the same upon closer look. It's kind of the way I felt years ago when companies started combining stereo systems into one or two boxes instead of remaining component based, where one could mix and match components as you wanted to.

I agree Chris that a certain user base may find this kind of arrangement useful but for me it seems more restrictive than anything.
Give me a patchbay any day so I can mix and match as I see fit.
I guess I can't blame them for reaching out to a broader market to stay alive, at least that's the way it feels to me.

Folcrom has arrived. I'm so slammed this summer, now to find the time to start using this. Its really well built and looks perfect for what I'm expecting.

vibrations1951 , how are you liking yours so far? What pre(s) have you tried?

audiokid, post: 431419, member: 1 wrote: Folcrom has arrived. I'm so slammed this summer, now to find the time to start using this. Its really well built and looks perfect for what I'm expecting.

vibrations1951 , how are you liking yours so far? What pre(s) have you tried?

Congrats on the Folcrom! I think it is just what the doctor ordered. I'm limited on pres to just 2 plus my Mix Wizard pres. I'm slammed as well so my experimenting has been very limited so.....

I first tried it through my AEA RPQ 2 channel ribbon pre and it sounded real nice and open to my ears. The RPQ has an input setting and output gain for each channel and I was able to get some really clean to pleasantly distorted signals out. Recently I hooked up my UA 2-610 and really had some fun! Although my listening environment and Yamie HM50's aren't the best I got some nice "warm" sounds and plenty of variables with the gain and EQ options with the 610. Using my old JBL 4311B's for monitoring has been really great to hear the differences. I'm getting the feeling that the Folcrom is a perfect match to what I'm trying to achieve for signal path variables and work flow development.

I really look forward to your experience and results with the Folcrom. It will be good to hear if you find it as "transparent" as I seem to and how it performs in your work flow for you. At this point I really feel it will be all I will need for a summing box with plenty of inputs for me, with judicious use of stems/groups from my DAW1 out through my Aurora 16. I think it will give me the all the flexibility I will need in signal path, tonal textures and work flow...at least for now! Plus it hooks up nicely to my Pure 2 into Daw 2 for finalizing etc. . Just a really great simple tool to get the job done with no added unnecessary/unwanted frills and minimal, to my ears, additional changes to the signal.

vibrations1951, post: 431433, member: 34341 wrote: Congrats on the Folcrom! I think it is just what the doctor ordered. I'm limited on pres to just 2 plus my Mix Wizard pres. I'm slammed as well so my experimenting has been very limited so.....

I first tried it through my AEA RPQ 2 channel ribbon pre and it sounded real nice and open to my ears. The RPQ has an input setting and output gain for each channel and I was able to get some really clean to pleasantly distorted signals out. Recently I hooked up my UA 2-610 and really had some fun! Although my listening environment and Yamie HM50's aren't the best I got some nice "warm" sounds and plenty of variables with the gain and EQ options with the 610. Using my old JBL 4311B's for monitoring has been really great to hear the differences. I'm getting the feeling that the Folcrom is a perfect match to what I'm trying to achieve for signal path variables and work flow development.

I really look forward to your experience and results with the Folcrom. It will be good to hear if you find it as "transparent" as I seem to and how it performs in your work flow for you. At this point I really feel it will be all I will need for a summing box with plenty of inputs for me, with judicious use of stems/groups from my DAW1 out through my Aurora 16. I think it will give me the all the flexibility I will need in signal path, tonal textures and work flow...at least for now! Plus it hooks up nicely to my Pure 2 into Daw 2 for finalizing etc. . Just a really great simple tool to get the job done with no added unnecessary/unwanted frills and minimal, to my ears, additional changes to the signal.

vibrations1951, post: 431433, member: 34341 wrote: Congrats on the Folcrom! I think it is just what the doctor ordered. I'm limited on pres to just 2 plus my Mix Wizard pres. I'm slammed as well so my experimenting has been very limited so.....

I first tried it through my AEA RPQ 2 channel ribbon pre and it sounded real nice and open to my ears. The RPQ has an input setting and output gain for each channel and I was able to get some really clean to pleasantly distorted signals out. Recently I hooked up my UA 2-610 and really had some fun! Although my listening environment and Yamie HM50's aren't the best I got some nice "warm" sounds and plenty of variables with the gain and EQ options with the 610. Using my old JBL 4311B's for monitoring has been really great to hear the differences. I'm getting the feeling that the Folcrom is a perfect match to what I'm trying to achieve for signal path variables and work flow development.

I really look forward to your experience and results with the Folcrom. It will be good to hear if you find it as "transparent" as I seem to and how it performs in your work flow for you. At this point I really feel it will be all I will need for a summing box with plenty of inputs for me, with judicious use of stems/groups from my DAW1 out through my Aurora 16. I think it will give me the all the flexibility I will need in signal path, tonal textures and work flow...at least for now! Plus it hooks up nicely to my Pure 2 into Daw 2 for finalizing etc. . Just a really great simple tool to get the job done with no added unnecessary/unwanted frills and minimal, to my ears, additional changes to the signal.

audiokid Howdy Chris! Have you tried out the Folcrom yet? What pre do you plan to default from it with?

Well it's been a while and I'm almost ready (waiting on delivery of Samplitude Prox2 Suite and some connectors and cable) to fire up my nearly complete system to this point as follows:

BOX 1 (MixWiz 16, Aurora 16,Mac, Nuendo 4) Analog out > Folcrom + 2 channel PRES (AEA RPQ/UA 610) > BOX 2(Ant. Pure2, Windows, Samp. Pro2 Suite)

Control room Monitoring with the Dangerous ST and Performer Monitoring with Hearback System from MXR auxes.
I brought nearly everything out to a patchbay so I have plenty of routing options.

Here is my plan for usual/normal monitor points to feed the ST:
1. 2-bus from Mix Wiz
2. Stereo out from Aurora
3. 2 channel pre outs
4. Pure2 mon out

My questions: Where do you usually/normally tap into your 2 DAW/Box system for monitoring during recording?
How about during mixing/mastering?

I look forward to your thoughts, questions and suggestions as well as any of those reading this who would be kind enough to chime in.
Boswell, DonnyThompson , kmetal

Namaste

vibrations1951, post: 433511, member: 34341 wrote: audiokid Howdy Chris! Have you tried out the Folcrom yet?

Not yet, and its killing me. I have been so slammed with other stuff in my life that its made it impossible t get to my studio.

vibrations1951, post: 433511, member: 34341 wrote: audiokidWhat pre do you plan to default from it with?

Millennia M-2b , SPL Premiums

vibrations1951, post: 433511, member: 34341 wrote: BOX 1 (MixWiz 16, Aurora 16,Mac, Nuendo 4) Analog out > Folcrom + 2 channel PRES (AEA RPQ/UA 610) > BOX 2(Ant. Pure2, Windows, Samp. Pro2 Suite)

Killer system

vibrations1951, post: 433511, member: 34341 wrote: My questions: Where do you usually/normally tap into your 2 DAW/Box system for monitoring during recording?
How about during mixing/mastering?

DAW1
But I always jump back in forth to DAW to for various reasons, which you will discover over time.
DAW1 also has lowest latency.

Sweet setup!!! You must be pumped. I wish I could comment on the monitoring and 2 daw setup but I've not worked with that method yet.

With so many preferences and connection options it's gets very custom. I guess for the sake of argument you may want the ability to use at least 2 sets of DA on whatever the 'final' point is, and I'm guessing also a/d at the summing stage if possible.

So I'd want to have it so on daw2s bus I could use the aurora, or the pures, da. I'm looking into a Dante based audio because of its easy routing/multing, but that's a whole other topic.

This confuses me, one of these days were gonna have to make an illustration of Chris's basic integration. Lol still scratching my head years later.

audiokid, post: 433513, member: 1 wrote: Not yet, and its killing me. I have been so slammed with other stuff in my life that its made it impossible t get to my studio.

Millennia M-2b , SPL Premiums

Killer system

DAW1
But I always jump back in forth to DAW to for various reasons, which you will discover over time.
DAW1 also has lowest latency.

Hey Chris! Yes, I'm really excited! Thanks for the kudos, couldn't have put this together without ya. Using the Millennia and SPLs should be incredible for you when you get the Folcrom up and running! Fall has been pretty hectic here but I look forward to more time in the studio soon as well. Hope things slow down for you. Winter's about here!
I'll need a cleaner pre eventually but the 610 "warmth" is pretty nice right now.
Primary monitoring through DAW1 sounds like the ticket. I do worry a lot about how latency will play out in this setup but I think it will take working it a while to figure this out.
I'm glad I have the options to check things out at many stages to hear what's going on, especially when mixing.
My best to you, thanks again and I'll keep you updated...
Namaste

kmetal, post: 433519, member: 37533 wrote: So I'd want to have it so on daw2s bus I could use the aurora, or the pures, da. I'm looking into a Dante based audio because of its easy routing/multing, but that's a whole other topic.

I only have minimal time here so hopefully this helps more than confuses.

No, the Pure2 should remain on DAW 2 as your final ADDA. DAW 2 is the one that tells the truth of your entire chain, including how good the Aurora is as well. There would be no point to reverse the ADDA's order although you could certainly do it but no point.

Think of it like this:
DAW 2 replaces DAW1 master section. You (disable) DAW1 Master section and never use it again. But, you still monitor DAW 1 via channels, Aux and bus's via the Aurora when you connect the Dangerous Monitor ST or similar controller.

The monitor controller connects 3 sections of the hybrid chain.

1. DAW1, Aurora ADDA > 2 channels of the DA goes into ST analog input 1.

2. Analog Matrix > AD can go 2 places. It can round trip back to DAW 1 via Aurora or split off to the Pure2 AD. Monitor ST analog input 2.
3. DAW 2. is the split uncoupled recorder that replaces the DAW1 master section. You monitor DAW 2 from the Pure2 DA which is connected to the input 2 of the ST. Make sense?

   Why would we do that?

   Best case scenario. Lets track at 192/24, and start mixing. You can be listening to your tracking or mix via the Aurora (192k).

   1. DAW1 > ADDA Aurora > Monitor ST input 1

   2. analog console > AD Aurora or Pure2 Monitor ST input 1 or 2
   3. DAW2 . ADDA Pure 2 Monitor ST input 2
      Monitor ST connects all 3 capture points > tracking, mixing and summing. This is why this system is so excellent. You are able to clinically monitor the capture points. Detailed cause and effect from each section of the chain. In other words, a closer look into what your analog hardware is really doing and how that is translating back to your capture process. Being able to select the pre or post much better.

      Monitor ST is an analog switching device (router) that allows us to monitor output sections of a hybrid workflow with precision accuracy while including speakers>A/B/C./ plus a sub. Plus cue. Its very powerful.

      As you are mixing you are still at 192k but able to study the mix in real time at 44.1. No bouncing. Its a beautiful thing :)
      Its the ultimate recording and mixing system because it helps us understand more about our analog process, in a digital world. It really sheds light on how analog changes sound. It makes a hybrid workflow more transparent, thus helping us not getting lost in the process.

      A 2 DAW system will allow clinical analytic to every piece of your gear and how it effects the sum. The better ADDA on DAW 2, the more accurate you can expect to study all aspects of a hybrid workflow.

      Not an easy explanation, but I do try.

vibrations1951, post: 433524, member: 34341 wrote: Primary monitoring through DAW1 sounds like the ticket. I do worry a lot about how latency will play out in this setup but I think it will take working it a while to figure this out.

This is where professional interfacing comes in.
Once you are in a busy mix, the most stable interfaces I've used, with the lowest latency, dead solid clocking are RME PCIe AES cards or RME MADI PCIe cards.
When it comes to this level of hybrid, FW and USB interfacing is pretty weak in comparison.

kmetal, post: 433519, member: 37533 wrote: Sweet setup!!! You must be pumped. I wish I could comment on the monitoring and 2 daw setup but I've not worked with that method yet.

With so many preferences and connection options it's gets very custom. I guess for the sake of argument you may want the ability to use at least 2 sets of DA on whatever the 'final' point is, and I'm guessing also a/d at the summing stage if possible.

So I'd want to have it so on daw2s bus I could use the aurora, or the pures, da. I'm looking into a Dante based audio because of its easy routing/multing, but that's a whole other topic.

This confuses me, one of these days were gonna have to make an illustration of Chris's basic integration. Lol still scratching my head years later.

Hello K.....I'll say I'm pumped! Thanks for the encouragement on the setup. Chris is really onto something here as well as others that are doing similar things.
It has really taken me a while to commit to trying this method. Fortunately I was pretty bare bones to start with so it didn't take too much set up and my experience with the digital world is so limited that I don't worry too much about new ways of doing things cause it's pretty much all new to me anyway!
I've considered ways to swap between the A/D/A units but I'm not sure it would practical for me.
I'm not familiar with Dante so I'll have to check that out.
Every time I try to illustrate it I get lost!LOL! I have to keep it simple: BOX1(A/D> DAW1>D/A) > Summing+/Analog world > BOX2(A/D, DAW2,D/A)! Ummmm,kinda I guess! There is more to this than I even suspect at this point but I'm diving in with both feet...Good to hear from you. I'd love to come check ya out sometime if I ever get close enough. After all, we're only about 7 hours apart!
Namaste

audiokid, post: 433525, member: 1 wrote: I only have minimal time here so hopefully this helps more than confuses.

No, the Pure2 should remain on DAW 2 as your final ADDA. DAW 2 is the one that tells the truth of your entire chain, including how good the Aurora is as well. There would be no point to reverse the ADDA's order although you could certainly do it but no point.

Think of it like this:
DAW 2 replaces DAW1 master section. You (disable) DAW1 Master section and never use it again. But, you still monitor DAW 1 via channels, Aux and bus's via the Aurora when you connect the Dangerous Monitor ST or similar controller.

The monitor controller connects 3 sections of the hybrid chain.

1. DAW1, Aurora ADDA > 2 channels of the DA goes into ST analog input 1.

2. Analog Matrix > AD can go 2 places. It can round trip back to DAW 1 via Aurora or split off to the Pure2 AD. Monitor ST analog input 2.
3. DAW 2. is the split uncoupled recorder that replaces the DAW1 master section. You monitor DAW 2 from the Pure2 DA which is connected to the input 2 of the ST. Make sense?

   Why would we do that?

   Best case scenario. Lets track at 192/24, and start mixing. You can be listening to your tracking or mix via the Aurora (192k).

   1. DAW1 > ADDA Aurora > Monitor ST input 1

   2. analog console > AD Aurora or Pure2 Monitor ST input 1 or 2
   3. DAW2 . ADDA Pure 2 Monitor ST input 2
      Monitor ST connects all 3 capture points > tracking, mixing and summing. This is why this system is so excellent. You are able to clinically monitor the capture points. Detailed cause and effect from each section of the chain. In other words, a closer look into what your analog hardware is really doing and how that is translating back to your capture process. Being able to select the pre or post much better.

      Monitor ST is an analog switching device (router) that allows us to monitor output sections of a hybrid workflow with precision accuracy while including speakers>A/B/C./ plus a sub. Plus cue. Its very powerful.

      As you are mixing you are still at 192k but able to study the mix in real time at 44.1. No bouncing. Its a beautiful thing :)
      Its the ultimate recording and mixing system because it helps us understand more about our analog process, in a digital world. It really sheds light on how analog changes sound. It makes a hybrid workflow more transparent, thus helping us not getting lost in the process.

      A 2 DAW system will allow clinical analytic to every piece of your gear and how it effects the sum. The better ADDA on DAW 2, the more accurate you can expect to study all aspects of a hybrid workflow.

      Not an easy explanation, but I do try.

WOW! I think I understood most of this first read through! You're a good teacher. As I work it a while I'm sure I'll have a lot to report back.
I really appreciate the time you have taken here Chris. The incredible potential power of this kind of setup is hard enough to understand let alone explain in all it's possible permutations!

audiokid, post: 433527, member: 1 wrote: This is where professional interfacing comes in.
Once you are in a busy mix, the most stable interfaces I've used, with the lowest latency, dead solid clocking are RME PCIe AES cards or RME MADI PCIe cards.
When it comes to this level of hybrid, FW and USB interfacing is pretty weak in comparison.

I'm spoiled by the RME PCI AES card on my DAW1. It will be interesting to see how the USB from the Pure2 works out with DAW2 for me.
Thanks again Chris.
Namaste

vibrations1951, post: 433530, member: 34341 wrote: WOW! I think I understood most of this first read through! You're a good teacher. As I work it a while I'm sure I'll have a lot to report back.
I really appreciate the time you have taken here Chris. The incredible potential power of this kind of setup is hard enough to understand let alone explain in all it's possible permutations!

Thanks, that meant a lot.

vibrations1951, post: 433531, member: 34341 wrote: I'm spoiled by the RME PCI AES card on my DAW1. It will be interesting to see how the USB from the Pure2 works out with DAW2 for me.
Thanks again Chris.

Good to hear. That is what you need. Maybe PCIe is a bit faster.
USB or FW on DAW 2 is perfect.

audiokid, post: 433533, member: 1 wrote: Thanks, that meant a lot

Glad to hear that. I think that what gets in the way of communicating ideas is all the automatic and preconceived schemas we all develop over time. Helps us to use our brain's mere 5 watts of power efficiently, but it can really mess with how we hear and try to understand new or different ideas, (cognitive-emotional filters with pre-programmed automatic reactions). OK, enough psychobabble!

Takes me a lot of time and effort to set aside my defaults so I'm grateful for your passion, tolerance and willingness to keep sharing your experience and ideas Chris.

audiokid, post: 433533, member: 1 wrote: Maybe PCIe is a bit faster.
USB or FW on DAW 2 is perfect.

My boxed Samp program arrived yesterday afternoon so I'll let ya know when it's all running. It will likely take me some time to set this up and get rolling.
I think it best to add a second hard drive to my PC so I can put the Samp Program on the original HD and project files on a new one. I have this set up internally on my Mac for Nuendo and it works well (I do need to add some RAM though).

audiokid,kmetal , DonnyThompson, Boswell
I was thinking that a 1-3 Terabyte drive could be good enough for projects on DAW2 PC but not sure.
Do you or others here have a suggestion about a good size, stable and dependable hard drive for the projects? (SSD?, Internal?, External?)
There seems to be a lot of discussion out there these days and I'm just wondering what you and other folks here have found and believe.

Thanks much!
Namaste

Storage is so cheap these days; I have three HDD's - one system drive, one internal backup drive, and a third external USB 1 TB for storage of projects and backups of other important files.

The key is to remember to back stuff up, LOL, of which I haven't the best of track records. ;)

I would think that most current popular audio dedicated HDDs and external USB's and FW's are plenty fast enough to run audio/video projects; and besides your CPU, a few other things to take into account are RAM and Video Memory. RAM will come into play when using things like Sample Libraries ( VSTi's) and other added audio processing.

I don't have any experience with SSD's, so I can't help ya there. Generally, any "name" drive, like Western Digital, Intel, or Seagate, etc. - as long as they are A/V rated and have a nice, fast transfer rate, will be fine.

I know a few studio guys using FW800 drives, but I also know plenty of guys who use USB and FW400 drives without any issues.

As far as Samp - the first thing you should do is to go to YouTube and search videos from Kraznet, he is the king of all things Samp/Sequoia. He's become a Guru to many samp users, and has put together some awesome instructional videos that are clear, concise, and start at the beginning for new users. I found him to be a priceless resource when I was first getting to know the program.

I also like Martin's ( Kraznet's) presentations because he's very professional sounding - kinda like a British University Professor. He gets right to the point, explains in incredibly clear detail what he's doing and why he's doing it, and maybe best of all, you won't have to sift through all the "Hey Dawgs/Dudes it's Rock God comin' atcha again with another biased opinion on__________ where I can show you what a bad ass I am, so watch as push my own band's awesomeness while I destroy the dynamics in this song..."

Another great resource is [[url=http://[/URL]="http://support2.mag…"]Samplitude's User Forum[/]="http://support2.mag…"]Samplitude's User Forum[/]. Many very knowledgeable people frequent this forum ( including Kraznet and Tim Dolbear) who can also be very helpful with particular questions/issues you may have.

Now, one thing you may want to do before you jump into Kraznet's instructional vids, is that you may want to set the menu style on your copy of Samplitude to Menu 11 - because this was the menu layout that Martin used for many of his videos when he put them together. If you go with the default menu for Pro X 2, you might not be able to locate some of the the functions and features that he refers to. All the features are still there, but they may be in locations other that what he points to.

He explains how to switch menu layouts here:

Here is the set of introductory level videos, for getting started:

Good Luck :)

vibrations1951, post: 433577, member: 34341 wrote: I was thinking that a 1-3 Terabyte drive could be good enough for projects on DAW2 PC but not sure.
Do you or others here have a suggestion about a good size, stable and dependable hard drive for the projects? (SSD?, Internal?, External?)
There seems to be a lot of discussion out there these days and I'm just wondering what you and other folks here have found and believe.

At the studio we have an OS/OS backup drive, Audio/audio backup, internally, and an external drive to as a 2nd backup. The OS backup isn't really necessary in my eyes to have internally, but my boss likes it. The rule of thumb with IT guys is if data isn't in 3 places at any given time, it isn't anywhere. Generally one backup copy onsite, and another offsite, is the basic idea.

If you have internally-

1- 500gb OS drive (SSD)
2- 2TB Audio drive/audio drive backup
1- 4 TB Sample drive (samples, music/video collection Ect)

Since its your mix down pc, you may not need a sample drive.

That's should give you a great start. The projects at the studios can easily end up about 100gb at our studio for an average 8-10 song production. Since there's 2 studios it has been a nightmare, keeping them identical. The biggest mistake my boss has made was not making a 'master drive' that contains everything current. With big projects things like lost fade files, missing audio snippets, and edits, can get lost.

In addition to an external, and cloud/NAS drive, you might want one more place that can contain all of your stuff you need to archive over the years. This allows you to keep everything just in case, but also allows you to keep the drives your using daily, more streamlined.

I picked up this link removed

It's an external hard drive, that is wireless. It allows you to acess it from any phone or computer. It also does scheduled backups, and realtime backup to google drive! It does a million other things too, but it's basically a personal cloud, and does everything you could do, and more, with a typical cloud based storage like ICloud, or google drive, Ect. It's still in the box so I can't comment on how it works.

But in theory, if I had a session saved on it, I could give you a password, and you could open the project on your computer, edit it, and then save it (drag and drop) back to my Hardrive. All while you were in Maine, and I was down here in Mass!! In realtime/Ethernet speeds. It also cross platform, which is a life saver!

I picked up a 2 tb drive for slot one and I'll get a 4 tb for slot 2. Using it to consolidate my 3-4 other audio drives, which I consider my 'archive' drive, and give clients faster access to their files, and allow me to access studio files from home, for the (damn that vocal is a little too soft) mix I'm hearing on the ride home.

Again since your just using it for a mix down daw a 250gb or 500gb SSD for the system, and 2-2tb audio/audio backup, should be fine, especially to get started. If your not storing multi track sessions, 2TB will hold many, many stereo mix downs.

Good recommendations.
DonnyThompson

fwiw. I linked the mass of Kraznet tutorials into our media section last year for forum post references and possibly push more support towards Samplitude. I'm still trying to optimize it and our media section so the media loads into the posts with simple keywords. Here's the start of it.
http://recording.org/media/categories/kraznet-samplitude.20/

DonnyThompson , kmetal , audiokid What fabulous responses! THANK YOU GUYS!

All of a sudden my schedule is jammed tight and I can't get to any of this for a bit. I'll get back to your responses when I can so I wanted to be sure to at least acknowledge my huge appreciation for the quick and highly informative stuff in your posts. I hate when this happens....
later......
Namaste

vibrations1951, post: 433646, member: 34341 wrote: DonnyThompson , kmetal , audiokid

All of a sudden my schedule is jammed tight and I can't get to any of this for a bit. I'll get back to your responses when I can so I wanted to be sure to at least acknowledge my huge appreciation for the quick and highly informative stuff in your posts. I hate when this happens....
later......
Namaste

kmetal, audiokid, DonnyThompson.
Before going any further with loading Samp Pro x2 suite Sample Library into my capture Box 2 PC I first have to upgrade my Box 1 Mac Pro RAM, which was only 6GB. (I'm biting the bullet and going for 32GB RAM and be very happy with that.)
Also, I need to add a second internal HD to my Box 2 PC which I anticipated before. (Probably 2TB)

So I've tried to condence my rattled brain farts of the whole 2 box picture down to the following 3 questions. I hope they make some kind of sense and if not I'll try again.

1. My Box 2 PC internal HD (capture rig) has about 400GB available after loading Samp onto it. Would it be wise to load the 70GB Pro x2 suite sample library onto the same OS HD or get an independent drive for the samples? (I'm adding a 2TB internal HD for projects in Box 2-capture) I have no experience with samples yet.

2. I really would prefer to use the samples with the Box 1 primary mixing DAW and my computer guy said it wouldn't be much trouble (or expense) to have them live in the PC (Box 2 capture) and cable this to the Mac with some sort of way for the Mac to have access to the samples. He knows the mechanics but not the in's and outs of DAWs/recording /mixing/sample use and I'm not much help to him with my limited experience.

Does this make any kind of sense because I have not had samples to use to date so I'm unclear about their use or if I can even use Samp Sample Libraries with my Box 1 Nuendo DAW? I'm not clear but it seems that if this makes sense, I could use the sample library in either box 1 or 2!...or not....

3. If it would work and I were to run the samples this way (cable transfer from Box 2 over to Box 1 somehow), which box's RAM would bear the wt. so to speak? (Box 2 has 12GB RAM). I'm guessing which ever box is using the sample at the time.......????arrrgh....'cause if it's Box 2, I would want to beef up the RAM there.

I've read and tried to digest all your extremely helpful posts over and over and as you can probably tell, I'm in over my head and very open to any advice/thoughts before I dare go ahead with any of this. I don't want to waste money or time with trial and error more than I need to.
I hope I'm not wasting your time with my inarticulate newbie ramblings

color me humbled....
Namaste

You have to perform all the tasks associated with preparing the mix streams in box 1. If you intend to include samples in your mix, these have to originate externally (e.g. from a sampler) or be resident in box 1. The source streams are mixed either ITB (in box 1) or OTB with an analog desk, either of these two methods generating a 2-track analog output.

The 2-track mix is captured asynchronously (i.e. using its own clock) by an A-D converter attached to box 2. Box 2 performs no other function at this stage except for monitoring the capture using a D-A converter. After the mix is captured, you can use box 2 to carry out any further processes such as mastering, or you could copy the 2-track mix file back to box 1 if your main DAW is there. The means that box 2 can be very simple, not needing huge memory or disk space, but it does need a high-quality ADC and DAC. The capture ADC is the critical component in the whole 2-box process.

PS You managed to make the whole of your last post a link to Chris's profile!

Boswell, post: 434134, member: 29034 wrote: You have to perform all the tasks associated with preparing the mix streams in box 1. If you intend to include samples in your mix, these have to originate externally (e.g. from a sampler) or be resident in box 1. The source streams are mixed either ITB (in box 1) or OTB with an analog desk, either of these two methods generating a 2-track analog output.

The 2-track mix is captured asynchronously (i.e. using its own clock) by an A-D converter attached to box 2. Box 2 performs no other function at this stage except for monitoring the capture using a D-A converter. After the mix is captured, you can use box 2 to carry out any further processes such as mastering, or you could copy the 2-track mix file back to box 1 if your main DAW is there. The means that box 2 can be very simple, not needing huge memory or disk space, but it does need a high-quality ADC and DAC. The capture ADC is the critical component in the whole 2-box process.

PS You managed to make the whole of your last post a link to Chris's profile!

OOPS! My regular laptop is out for repair and I was using an old clunker that kept going wonky. Sorry Chris!
Here is my signal path:
Box 1 (Mac, Nuendo 4, Aurora 16 ADDA) > Folcrom 16 > AEA RPQ 2 channel Pre >Box 2 (PC, Samplitude Prox2 Suite, Antelope Pure2 ADDA)

My apparent confusion is basic regarding samples I think.

So, if I am getting this right, samples are 2 track additions to the mix. If the Samplitude Samples are in Box 2 with it's associated program (only way to load them?) then I could use a sampler of some sort to copy/transfer to and utilize them in box 1 for mixing as additional tracks??
Anotherwards, can I use the samples living in box 2 to add to my mix in box 1 as long as I have a way to get them there?
Perhaps I jumped the gun and should just research samples and how to use them.
Thanks Bos

The only way you could do that without compromising the asynchrony would be to play the samples out of further D-A channels attached to box 2 and mix esternally in analog.

If there is something about the hardware of boxes 1 and 2 that means the samples can only play on box 2, then is it possible to interchange the computers so you use the machine that was box 2 as the source and the machine that was box 1 as the capture device?

Boswell, post: 434139, member: 29034 wrote: The only way you could do that without compromising the asynchrony would be to play the samples out of further D-A channels attached to box 2 and mix esternally in analog.

If there is something about the hardware of boxes 1 and 2 that means the samples can only play on box 2, then is it possible to interchange the computers so you use the machine that was box 2 as the source and the machine that was box 1 as the capture device?

A good question and one I've tried to get my head around. The short answer is I'm not sure just yet but may go that way. I think I've made things more complicated than should be by having a Mac and a PC in my path.

Would you explain what you mean by asynchrony here? That might help my process.

vibrations1951, post: 434140, member: 34341 wrote: Would you explain what you mean by asynchrony here?

Simply the state of the two boxes not sharing the same clock. If you were to source samples digitally from box 2 to mix on box 1, you would have to lock the clocks together.

Boswell, post: 434144, member: 29034 wrote: Simply the state of the two boxes not sharing the same clock. If you were to source samples digitally from box 2 to mix on box 1, you would have to lock the clocks together.

Ok thanks. I'll have to do some heavy thinking here. I don't think that switching boxes will work for me because I want Samplitude as my capture DAW and I don't believe it is Mac compatible.
I'll have to see what it would take to lock the clocks together and if this might cause other potential problems. I'm just "trying to have my cake and eat it too!"
Right now I think it will be best to leave well enough alone and if I can only use the samples with Box 2, so be it. I purchased the Pro x2 Suite version for other components so the Sample Library was just a bonus.
Bos I appreciate your help very much.
namaste

You don't need a sophisticated DAW such as Samplitude for simple 2-track capture. I often use Audacity for this task, principally for the reason that I have inspected the source code and verified that the captured ADC samples are written to disk without any bit changes. You can't easily do this with other DAWs.

A disadvantage of using Audacity is that the monitoring is not the greatest, but once you know the samples are unchanged on their way to disk you can use direct monitoring at the audio interface, removing any latency effects in the process.

Boswell, post: 434150, member: 29034 wrote: You don't need a sophisticated DAW such as Samplitude for simple 2-track capture. I often use Audacity for this task, principally for the reason that I have inspected the source code and verified that the captured ADC samples are written to disk without any bit changes. You can't easily do this with other DAWs.

A disadvantage of using Audacity is that the monitoring is not the greatest, but once you know the samples are unchanged on their way to disk you can use direct monitoring at the audio interface, removing any latency effects in the process.

I see your point and need to give it a lot of trial with what I have first and see how Box 2 will be utilized as this is all new to me. I may be wrong but I got the impression from Chris' earlier posts that I may end up utilizing Box 2 a bit in the mixing process and potential "mastering" as well, so I would want good monitoring through my Dangerous ST after DAW 2 and not before the Pure2 alone.

So to get back to another part of my questions, does it make sense to put the Sample Library (70GB) on the OS of Box 2 that has about 400GB free right now or should it sit on it's own internal drive instead?

vibrations1951, post: 434151, member: 34341 wrote: So to get back to another part of my questions, does it make sense to put the Sample Library (70GB) on the OS of Box 2 that has about 400GB free right now or should it sit on it's own internal drive instead?

No, it doesn't make sense to me to source the samples from box 2, but you may see it differently. However, as I mentioned earlier, I would make an exception if you are mixing in analog and can replay the samples directly from box 2 into the analog mix. Whether this would work in timing terms would depend on how you are triggering them. What you can't do is route the samples digitally from box 2 into a mix being done in box 1.

Where the samples are stored on any given computer is a separate issue to how they are being replayed. It's generally a good idea to have samples on a drive that is not otherwise being used for the OS or any of the DAW operations, but that's not the issue here.

Boswell, post: 434153, member: 29034 wrote: No, it doesn't make sense to me to source the samples from box 2, but you may see it differently. However, as I mentioned earlier, I would make an exception if you are mixing in analog and can replay the samples directly from box 2 into the analog mix. Whether this would work in timing terms would depend on how you are triggering them. What you can't do is route the samples digitally from box 2 into a mix being done in box 1.

Where the samples are stored on any given computer is a separate issue to how they are being replayed. It's generally a good idea to have samples on a drive that is not otherwise being used for the OS or any of the DAW operations, but that's not the issue here.

I'll be mixing ITB. Sorry I forgot to mention that earlier.
I am confusing matters by talking about two or more different things at once I think.
I have decided to hold off on the use of the samples for a while and just wanted to put them in Box 2 so I think you have answered my question.
I will get 2 more separate internal drives for my PC in box 2 and end up with the 400+GB drive where the OS and DAW lives now, add a 500GB internal drive for the Sample Library as well as a 2TB internal drive for projects. It has 12GB RAM and I feel that should be sufficient. I have 2TB external drive for backup for the PC. I think will do me real fine for quite a while at this stage of the game for me.
Does this seem OK?

I'll step in and add a bit because you are actually attempting what I have been doing for years already.

Your sample library, actually the mass of your recording and mixing system all needs to be on DAW1.

DAW 2 is for capturing your mix and/ could expand into mastering.

As Bos already said, you can use any DAW for DAW 2. I just happen to use Sequoia 13 for both DAW's because I have expensive taste and means to get this stuff. But that doesn't mean I couldn't get stellar results with Reaper on both DAW's. Or one DAW for that matter.

What you need to do is get your main DAW and monitoring working really well. DAW 1 is priority.
Think of DAW 2 being a replacement option for the master bus section of DAW1. To put it simple... DAW2 captures a mix exactly like a 2 track tape machine would. When you have mastering software on DAW 2, it opens you up to more ways to mixdown and master.

Do you understand this?