I'll have to check out that book. I love eq while tracking. As far as when to cut/boost, I'll do either at any time. In general I'll do a bit of both, say like a hpf long with a boost in the top, or a mid cut. Typical fare.

Consoles like a toft are cool from what I hear. I messed around w a trident 64 at the studio for a few months while we it, I loved the low end on the eq. I sold just about everything I had (gear wise) but I held on to a Tascam m-30 mixer. I paid $100 for the mixer, reel to reel, and spring reverb, of a buddy of mine. Anyway is like a $20 mixer, but it's got 8 Transformer based (coupled?) pres, and a 3 and semi parametric eqs.

I bought it on a whim, hadn't heard of it, didn't even know if it passed signal, i just knew it powered on. I took it home, and after an hour, lol I got sound. (In my defense it's a confusing mixer, due to its routing and submixing section, which made it so versatile, in the late 70 early 80's home recording scenarios.)

As soon as I heard the check check of my voice, I went whoa, this thing sounds good! Imo it sounds better than any mackie, a&h, berringer, or presonus stuff I've used.

Im going to redo the case and clean up the electronics before I put it to use in the new setup. Figured I'd mention it, becasue a lot of the older Tascam stuff is super cheap, and actually well built and designed. Transformers can contribute a lot to sound.

As dingy and old as the mixer looks, it's actually quite 'clean' sounding. At like $2.50 per channel, the old Tascam mixers can be useful. Two caveats- they don't all have phantom power, or balanced output (think RCA output connectors), so, it's not an end all, but worth keeping your eyes open at yard sales.

I never EQ while recording. Although that is subjective..... I do put fx on guitar while tracking using stompboxes, and use the eq on my amp while tracking. I do not use a console at all, I use my Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 for everything soundwhise in my studio. I did use a console in the past, but space limitation is now a factor so the consoles had to leave in my new home....... Do I miss them? not really at the moment.

I find it tricky to record with EQ or compression, I leave that for the mixing stage. Bookwhise I'm reading Mixing Secrets from Mike Senior right now. Interesting book, learn from it, and see opinions that are interesting. For about $30,= it is a nice book!

Robin.

If I know the band well I'll do all sorts of things on the way in. When I don't know what to expect I hedge, bypassing most eq and compression. Usually I'm using a Tascam M2600 Mk2 which is okay but nothing special. I guess it's fairly neutral, which leaves getting good sound up to me. If I had to track without processing it wouldn't kill me. Besides, if you can pick your mic you're effectively eq-ing on the way in anyway.

That's right Bouldersound, choosing a mic, is chossing a sound colour.......

Robin.

keep in mind Nichols had the advantage of ..... 1) great rooms he could trust for tracking and listening subjectively. i know he placed great importance on having a good listening environment as i attended a seminar where he, John Storyk and John Meyer set up a C/R at the Hilton in SF, and 2) great consoles. i myself would hesitate using the EQ on any table top board.

bouldersound, post: 438078, member: 38959 wrote: Besides, if you can pick your mic you're effectively eq-ing on the way in anyway.

Yeah mic position and choice is the first key, (after room, instrument, Ect). after exhausting the mic collection and picking the perfect mic, there may still be room left for enhancement or correction with EQ and compression. I find chipping away a few db at a time leaves less dbs for the plug-insand CPU to have to augment. Eq is just so powerful, and fast, and intuitive, tracking, to me is a great time to apply it, during the inspiring sound getting. i love the power of tone eq and compression have, and I want to "feel" it when we are tracking. The eq and compression interact in a realtime way, the effect the performance itself. The interaction of the artist and the processing on the way in is part of the performance. It effects how the artist hears themselves during the moment of performance. this can be done in monitoring only, but I just try and print what where excited about at the moment.

If you think of like, good gain staging technique outside the realm of just pre amp gain, and apply it to EQ and GR, it's letting each processor handle a lesser load, so nothing has to work to hard on its own. It helps preserve overall continuity to the sound imo. Your feeding the daw a more refined "finished" product.

This is all naturally circumstantial. But I personally love that opportunity to enhance in the moment.

I'm more into channel strips, and chained units, than consoles in general. There more compact. And there's less fat. Consoles have faders, summing amps, auxes, buses, and the related chips and caps. This contributes to there sound for better worse or negligible effect. Channel strips are more affordable, and less maintenance and power hungry in general. There's not the phase coherence issues you'd have with a console. a console that doesn't control Daw functions, is impractical in most recording cases, when your talking anything larger than a 16 ch footprint.

Consoles make sense if you need a lot of channels and or quickly, like drums, or a studio that records other bands and musicians. This is where affordability happens. 8ch of Tascam or toft does a whole drum kit. A whole kit for $50, with xformer based pres, and eq. It's impossible to beat price wise. The toft illustrates that at a different price point. 8ch of toft the trident based eq and pres in the toft, would cost 2-3x in separate rackmount units. The extra power supplies for 16 individual pre and eq units would be expensive and impractical.

I like combo pre/eq units like a cleared/neve or whatever brand, and a separate compressor unit. When you start to squeeze a compressor into the channel strip, it limits the compressors design constraints. The presonus eureka has a decent transparent compressor built in.

I like the idea of a stereo pre/eq, patched into a stereo compressor, preferably with the ability to patch the compressor pre or post eq.

Again this is all circumstance. My philosophy is from the player and instrument, on in the chain, make everything as enhanced as possible as soon as possible, I want my processing done sooner than later. This doesn't mean I won't go light if unsure. I always (whenever possible) print DIs and safes, and triggers, samples, Ect. Printing the direct outs, and/or splitting the signal after the pre amp is always a fail safe too.

My philosophy is to basically have a fail safe, and an enhanced inspired version whenever possible. I look at the tracking as a processing stage that cannot be reproduced, yet until Dsp is better. Even if the pluggin and the box were identical sounding, the way the next eq (for instance) in line handles the signal is different when it's in a series of inserts, vs soley processing a signal. If I apply a 6db boost during the tracking and print it, it would sound different than printing flat, and applying the same exact settings and processing. I belive this is true analog or digital. I'm not definding one way or another just noting it is 'different'.

Flat is for pancakes lol.

I'm going to take the Tascam apart, clean it up, replace all the scratchy pots, rebuilt he power supply, do chips and caps, make new hardwood sides for it, and roackmount it. This is really just for fun, more as a soldering project than anything else.

another thing to think about, ..... digital eq sounds different than analog eq.

kmetal, post: 438081, member: 37533 wrote: When you start to squeeze a compressor into the channel strip, it limits the compressors design constraints.

check out a Millennia STT-1 Origin. no compromises. excellent channel strip.

Kurt Foster, post: 438082, member: 7836 wrote: another thing to think about, ..... digital eq sounds different than analog eq.

check out a Millennia STT-1 Origin. no compromises. excellent channel strip.

That looks pretty cool. I still like having a compresser in a different box personally. Something like that is great, but it's all gonna have a millennia sound. I would argue if those units were separated there would be inherently less design compromises and a better final product. Maybe not, lol I haven't used it. Like the La-610 for instance, is not the same design as the 610 and la-2 separately. They removed tubes from the compresser sections, I think in the amplifier section of it. Millennia notes they included the amplifier tubes with they're selective unit.

I'm wondering what other options are there for Eq besides desktop consoles, or consoles? A pultec? A range peq15? The 550a? It seems to me an eq in general (besides a tube based) can be incorporated/paired a lot more easily with the preamp and its box. That's where your getting your gains, both signal, and frequency dependent gains in the eq. Plus, I like the idea that when messing w phase (eq) the pre and eq, are close together physically, and with similar/match component levels. All that crap, seems to just be at that crucial point, the input amp.

Compressors just seem like a different animal, something that should be separate. Obviously there's hard bypass, and individual ins/outs on a lot of channel strips. As cool as that box is, I'm not into Swiss army boxes like that in general, because, they, unlike a real Swiss Army knife, only do one or two things usefully well.

kmetal, post: 438081, member: 37533 wrote: Yeah mic position and choice is the first key, (after room, instrument, Ect). after exhausting the mic collection and picking the perfect mic, there may still be room left for enhancement or correction with EQ and compression. I find chipping away a few db at a time leaves less dbs for the plug-insand CPU to have to augment. Eq is just so powerful, and fast, and intuitive, tracking, to me is a great time to apply it, during the inspiring sound getting. i love the power of tone eq and compression have, and I want to "feel" it when we are tracking. The eq and compression interact in a realtime way, the effect the performance itself. The interaction of the artist and the processing on the way in is part of the performance. It effects how the artist hears themselves during the moment of performance. this can be done in monitoring only, but I just try and print what where excited about at the moment.

{like +1}

i have an SST-1 and i can say there are absolutely no compromises. the full featured comp section can be accessed separately and is very much like an LA2. the eq is stellar and we all know what the mic pre is. the advantage of being able to kick in the transformer if you wish and the choice of ss or valve topology is an added bonus. of course it all comes at a price but i will say if you can find a nice used one you will not loose money when you decide to sell. these box's have held their value quite well for over ten years now.

this is an example i recorded a few years ago .... keep in mind my lame singing and playing aren't top notch but you can hear the sound. the solo is done on a dano longhorn bass squished by the comp.

http://www.nowherer…

I love how most good gear holds its value! My question is, do you feel like the extra options and switches are truly useful? Not so much at the top echelons like milllenia, but you know how those things can be pure gimmick.

Millennia is a company I ignored for a long time, because I was always into saturation and harmonic buildup/distortions. I've always felt clean/transparent had a place, good clean, not that old 90's 'sterile' clean. I've figured out quite a bit about distortions, and bad garages, over the years. I've always noticed cleaner recordings seem to stand the test of time. Anyways, I gues what I'm trying to say is, I'm into clean gear lately, and there's a difference between a focusrite Octo pre, and a milllenia or grace. All clean, but the money is in the size and presence, which is where the price points reflect.

Tubes don't have to be dirty or old sounding. I was shocked how clean the Manley tube pres are. And I'm longing to hear a McIntosh. As a rocker guitarist, I always associated the characteristics of tubes, with grit and power, but I've learned a bit.

did you do that to tape Kurt?

I love how most good gear holds its value! My question is, do you feel like the extra options and switches are truly useful? Not so much at the top echelons like milllenia, but you know how those things can be pure gimmick.

Millennia is a company I ignored for a long time, because I was always into saturation and harmonic buildup/distortions. I've always felt clean/transparent had a place, good clean, not that old 90's 'sterile' clean. I've figured out quite a bit about distortions, and bad garages, over the years. I've always noticed cleaner recordings seem to stand the test of time. Anyways, I gues what I'm trying to say is, I'm into clean gear lately, and there's a difference between a focusrite Octo pre, and a milllenia or grace. All clean, but the money is in the size and presence, which is where the price points reflect.

Tubes don't have to be dirty or old sounding. I was shocked how clean the Manley tube pres are. And I'm longing to hear a McIntosh. As a rocker guitarist, I always associated the characteristics of tubes, with grit and power, but I've learned a bit.

did you do that to tape Kurt?

miyaru, post: 438077, member: 49780 wrote: I never EQ while recording.

I understand that many engineers do think this way, and if that works for them, then it's not for me to say otherwise.

But, speaking for myself, I never say "never"... LOL, or really put any limits on what I do, as each project is its own thing. There have been times where I've tracked with no EQ at all, and other times where I've used all kinds of it.
If I can get a sound I like on the way into the DAW by using EQ to do it? Then I will. Every project is different, and what worked on one song/track might not work for another.

I'm all about context - taking each project/song/track as its "own thing", with its own requirements, its own individual approach.

Although, there seems to be more of a tendency in digital to record without adding obvious EQ - because so many preamps/I-O's don't offer any EQ adjustment to the signal - unless you're counting the front-loaded tonal differences of certain tranny or tube preamps/channel strips, or using the tonal character of certain plugs which allow processed signal to be printed as such to the DAW; or, for that matter, even using HPF's on particular mics - which also have their own tonal characteristics, too - which will also change the EQ of a signal.

I'd wager to say that nothing I record is ever really truly flat, as I commonly use those things I've mentioned above, and they all offer their own coloration and tonal textures.

As Kurt ( Kurt Foster ) has said several times, even preamps that are touted as being "transparent" as their main selling feature aren't 100% truly transparent. While there are pres that are certainly far less colored than others, there will always be some kind of tonal character involved, to one degree or another.
Obviously, this coloration is more apparent with transformer or tube-based models; and after all, that's precisely why we choose to use those types at certain times - but even preamps like Grace, RME, and Millennia, which are sought after because of their lack of obvious coloration, will still have their own individual tonal character. It's just the nature of the beast - anytime you route signal through a box with voltage - which uses wires, caps and resistors - you're bound to pick up some sonic coloration.

It really comes down to whether or not you dig the sound of that particular coloration... or lack of it. ;)

IMO.
-d.

kmetal, post: 438087, member: 37533 wrote: I love how most good gear holds its value! My question is, do you feel like the extra options and switches are truly useful? Not so much at the top echelons like milllenia, but you know how those things can be pure gimmick.

did you do that to tape Kurt?

i do think all the options are useful. the box is well built using military grade switches and potentiometers.

that was recorded to Cubase 24/48. unfortunately i can't load the wave file here so i was forced to use the nowhere mp3. it sounds better in wave.

Kurt Foster, post: 438090, member: 7836 wrote: unfortunately i can't load the wave file here so i was forced to use the nowhere mp3. it sounds better in wave.

You know man, I've been racking my brain for months about this. As a collective, our ability to share/demonstrate/present content is pathetic, especially given the field where in. I can see where on RO or any site in general, it would be expensive to store .wav files, especially when talking "mix micro tweak #1,000" in the critique section, or an HD film clip would be massive, both storage and stream wise.

So with an understanding of the constraints aside, 34 years ago, 16/44.1 became Standard. So now we're listening to a degraded version routinely, that's 2 years older than I am. That's one big thing I like Dropbox for, is that it will stream any quality your hardware/connection can support.

I think we should put our heads together about this, and hopefully find a way to demonstrate our points in at least 'cd' quality. I'm slowly getting things together on my new rig. I'd gladly contribute anything I can to make things easier, and I'd feel just fine with the ones I know remotely accessing my remote drive. It seems storage is not so much the problem but the streaming? I'm just starting to learn about CPU component level relationships, and networking, so I don't understand the how's and whys of how it even works now.

I love our multimedia approach these days. We're finally showing more and more of our own work, and using audio examples to describe our points. Even better is we can hear them right in our sweet spots. Compared to even just 3 years ago, we are really illustrating our texts better. And this is only the beginning... What I've noticed often is the point rendered irrelevant due to you tube destruction. I wonder if YouTube HD is actually streaming 16/44.1.??

Battery low, that's it for now. Cheers.

kmetal, post: 438081, member: 37533 wrote:

My philosophy is to basically have a fail safe, and an enhanced inspired version whenever possible. I look at the tracking as a processing stage that cannot be reproduced, yet until Dsp is better. Even if the pluggin and the box were identical sounding, the way the next eq (for instance) in line handles the signal is different when it's in a series of inserts, vs soley processing a signal. If I apply a 6db boost during the tracking and print it, it would sound different than printing flat, and applying the same exact settings and processing. I belive this is true analog or digital. I'm not definding one way or another just noting it is 'different'./QUOTE]
/QUOTE]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at. Kudos[

kmetal, post: 438081, member: 37533 wrote:

My philosophy is to basically have a fail safe, and an enhanced inspired version whenever possible. I look at the tracking as a processing stage that cannot be reproduced, yet until Dsp is better. Even if the pluggin and the box were identical sounding, the way the next eq (for instance) in line handles the signal is different when it's in a series of inserts, vs soley processing a signal. If I apply a 6db boost during the tracking and print it, it would sound different than printing flat, and applying the same exact settings and processing. I belive this is true analog or digital. I'm not definding one way or another just noting it is 'different'.

I believe this has to be true, spot on.

Given the option I'd prefer eq and dynamics be controlled by eq and dynamics processors, not by the inherent flaws of the storage and transmission technologies.

bouldersound, post: 438096, member: 38959 wrote: Given the option I'd prefer eq and dynamics be controlled by eq and dynamics processors, not by the inherent flaws of the storage and transmission technologies.

This is very interesting, it makes sense to me but I have not had the pleasure of experiencing quality analog processing myself.
It's all about having fun and being intuitive, right? I imagine being intuitive with processing while tracking would be a very cool and exciting experience.

ChrisH, post: 438101, member: 43833 wrote: This is very interesting, it makes sense to me but I have not had the pleasure of experiencing quality analog processing myself.
It's all about having fun and being intuitive, right? I imagine being intuitive with processing while tracking would be a very cool and exciting experience.

I don't know about "intuitive", but if I were an author I would be annoyed if printing or shipping my book changed the words I wrote.

bouldersound, post: 438102, member: 38959 wrote: I don't know about "intuitive", but if I were an author I would be annoyed if printing or shipping my book changed the words I wrote.

well then you should prepare yourself to be annoyed for the rest of your life. there is no capture or processing that does not change the signal in some way. the best to be expected is to record something and then be happy with the results.

Kurt Foster, post: 438104, member: 7836 wrote: ...in some way.

And to some degree. A lesser degree is my preference.

i think the only reason to track without compression or eq (other than the sound is just right without it) would be that you are not confident in what you are hearing or in what you need to do, so you procrastinate, leaving the decision until later. this presents the question, what makes you think you will be better prepared to make that decision later? i submit you would probably do pretty close to the same thing unless your plan is to just throw sh*t at it until you stumble on something that sounds good by accident. what a huge waste of time. i know of no client that would be willing to pay for hours of "poke and hope". if it doesn't sound good, it's your job to make it so and you should know how to get there. i don't see any reason that mic placement is any different than decisions about eq or dynamic range.

in my world, clients wanted / needed to hear playbacks as close as possible to what a mix would sound like. to do that you have to be able to add eq and dynamics to the track both as you are recording and at the playback and to do that, you need a good recording console. DAWs can't do this efficiently, latency being the core issue. i find it amazing that a technology that is over 100 years old, can still do this better. computers still can't process at the speed of light, yet we call this an advancement? lol. one of the reasons i suspect that pro rooms still keep those SSL's and Neve's.

i began recording on limited tracks (1/2/4/8). i was forced at the start to learn how to make a f*#kin' decision. its kind of hard to change the sound of a snare drum that's mixed in with the entire kit on one or two tracks. consequently, i know what i want / need things to sound like before i hit the "R" button. i choose the direction of the recording not vice versa. to me recording 20 different elements and then making the decisions on what needs what, is just too overwhelming. i have learned that by eq'ing and compressing things to tape i can hear better how a new element will sit in the mix and then tailor subsequent new tracks to fit. it just makes more sense to me to do things that way. why put off to tomorrow, what can be done today? the best engineers have worked this way for years and it's how professional engineers are trained to this day.

Spot on, Kurt.

How about even if you can't afford to track to tape at least getting away from a computer screen (maybe even just to your side, like I see a lot in pro studios) so that you are doing more listening and "feeling" with actual faders and knobs while tracking and mixing? Less distractions, no eye strain. For me, working with a mouse (even glorified mouses aka "daw controllers" since they're hard to trust) there's a distracting element to it where you become over meticulous with making sure you're cutting -1.0 db's instead of -1.2 where maybe if you just had your hand on the actual eq potentiometer you'd be just listening and who knows how many db's you end up cutting, and who cares?
Makes sense to me, I know I've said this before but I think If I got a decent mixer to track and mix with and started a collection hardware processors (even if they weren't top notch quality) id be happier and create better results.

This certainly translates over to still frame film photography vs digital photography.

just to be clear, i'm not talking about tracking to analog tape only. i do love 2" tape but even adats can sound pretty darn good even through an old MCI.

Kurt Foster, post: 438116, member: 7836 wrote:

in my world, clients wanted / needed to hear playbacks as close as possible to what a mix would sound like. to do that you have to be able to add eq and dynamics to the track both as you are recording and at the playback and to do that, you need a good recording console. DAWs can't do this efficiently, latency being the core issue.

The concern for monitoring latency being that it will effect the musicians performance, right?

yes

ChrisH, post: 438123, member: 43833 wrote: Spot on, Kurt.

How about even if you can't afford to track to tape at least getting away from a computer screen (maybe even just to your side, like I see a lot in pro studios) so that you are doing more listening and "feeling" with actual faders and knobs while tracking and mixing? Less distractions, no eye strain. For me, working with a mouse (even glorified mouses aka "daw controllers" since they're hard to trust) there's a distracting element to it where you become over meticulous with making sure you're cutting -1.0 db's instead of -1.2 where maybe if you just had your hand on the actual eq potentiometer you'd be just listening and who knows how many db's you end up cutting, and who cares?

Looking away from the screen and using your ears is easy, you just have to make a habit of it. In Sony Vegas you can adjust most any control by mousing over and using the scroll wheel. The control will move in 1dB increments, or 0.1dB with Ctrl held down. It's a simple matter of putting the pointer over the thing you want to adjust, looking away from the screen and scrolling up or down until it sounds right.

Kurt Foster, post: 438116, member: 7836 wrote: in my world, clients wanted / needed to hear playbacks as close as possible to what a mix would sound like. to do that you have to be able to add eq and dynamics to the track both as you are recording and at the playback and to do that, you need a good recording console. DAWs can't do this efficiently, latency being the core issue. i find it amazing that a technology that is over 100 years old, can still do this better. computers still can't process at the speed of light, yet we call this an advancement? lol. one of the reasons i suspect that pro rooms still keep those SSL's and Neve's

Just for conversation sake...
I can do this with the DAW system I set up no problem. The latency is so tight, it is never an issue and the sound quality is a mind blower. I could never ask for better.
What's ironic, comparing a $100,000 + SSL or Neve console to a $2500 DAW system and expecting it to compete.

As an example, my second kick at the hybrid can, incorporated converters and interfacing that exceeded $20,000.
My DAW system cost as much as an SSL and would (just guessing) kick both those top brand console out of the park in all respects. I would bet a good chunk of change on it that my end result would sound better than the consoles. If not, it certainly wouldn't be worth the fuss to go backwards in time for the console way of life. Once itb, stay itb.
Console are a thing of the past. Other than eye candy and sheer enjoyment of twisting knobs (or a signature sound I suppose), there is absolutely no need to use one ever again. Independent monitor controllers are also essential and until you use this in the pro sense, what do you expect going round trip on a simple DAW package.

We surly are never going to know this unless the interfacing and converter (connected to a solid PC) are at least up to standards.
AES EBU or MADI PCIe is the only way I would be running a pro studio today.
No disrespect intended to those never having the luxury to use such a fine DAW system I have built. I know from first hand experience... my tracking, mixing and mastering system never experiences all the setbacks I read from those who profess the analog system of yesteryear to the be better than a modern DAW system build correctly today.
There is a reason people complain about DAW systems acting up today. Look at what they are using or doing. PCIe interfacing is the first clue to solid interfacing. This may change one day, but so far, that's my story.

imho

I'm in the process of building my 4th DAW system and its starting with this.
http://www.rme-audio.de/en/products/hdspe_madi.php

or, depending on my second choice of converters, this:
http://www.rme-audio.de/en/products/hdsp_aes32.php

audiokid, post: 438208, member: 1 wrote: I can do this with the DAW system I set up no problem. The latency is so tight, it is never an issue and the sound quality is a mind blower. I could never ask for better.

What happens when your shoulders deep in an effects heavy mix, and you want to lay down a guitar riff, or vocal overdub? Are you able to just create the track and hit record? Do you have to adjust buffers/freeze tracks, to do something like that?

Latency doesn't bother me at home until past 128sample buffer. Obviously less is better. I hate doing cue/monitor mixes live and studio, phones and wireless/Ethernet is so huge in that respect. And it's common and easy to use a digital mixer, or the interfaces Dsp to get real time cue mixes.

My whole thing is not wasting time and effort using cue Dsp things, because the settings don't translate to the session. So the artist performs well, and hears well, and you end up trying to mimick that in the mixing. It's not that the artist can't have whatever they want, I just would hate dialing in great cue compression, in a 'cue mix Dsp' mixer via either a digital mixer, or audio interfaces built in, just to have to open a pluggin in the session and try to get those setting in there.

PTHD has the idea correct as far Dsp/daw integration, it's just expensive, and not always the highest quality. At .7ms it's got the lowest latency available, with madi and Ethernet, thunderbolt, Ect, coming, + .9ms, which is still super fast.

Chris (audiokid) identified the issue. It's what we are asking our gear to do. This is why I'm "maxing" my new daw CPU out before I turn it on. And even then i have modest expectations.

I made the mistake of having high expectations, and was fooled by marketing myself with a core duo laptop. It worked very well and reliably within the realms of audition, and reaper. Not so much with the digi design crap.

Considering we just discovered how to store electrical energy, in the 1870's, we ain't doing to bad technology wise.

I think the biggest flaws in daws of late stem from moving parts. My iPad can easy track and process 24trcks with effects and processing, which sounds surprisingly 'usable'. Various iPads in general have proven reliable live and demos at home. Usually it's a networking issue when there is one.

My iPad is powerful enough basically for most of my needs, and is relatively reliable compared to any other computer device I've ever used. So if a tablet of just about any model and make from the past few years can handle my home recordings, I think there's hope for computer daws in the budget market, finally getting realtime processing.

The way control surfaces and the like are integrated still isn't as tactile as the large format console, and that to me is the hardest thing to deal w. Now, while tablet control stil isn't as cool as an actual row of eq and compression knobs, it's way better than any other means of pluggin control (besides the antiquated novation nocturn). Faders and panning is already available, albeit expensively, and of various feel quality. It's hands on pluggin control that seems to be lacking, especially with actual encoders.

More and more, the rack processors we house are going to communicate both ways digitally with our daws, and the recallability of digital will work analog, and we can use digital piplines to take the processing load off of the CPU.

Maybe, just maybe, someone will build a dedicated A/V editor. Something akin to a hard disk recorder or tape machine. A dedicated machine for the AV purpose. Not something that can run cad and jnternet and this and that. I'd have no problem investing in a closed system if it became standard.

audiokid, post: 438209, member: 1 wrote: I'm in the process of building my 4th DAW system and its starting with this.
http://www.rme-audio.de/en/products/hdspe_madi.php

or, depending on my second choice of converters, this:
http://www.rme-audio.de/en/products/hdsp_aes32.php

Oooooohhhhhh do tell Chris!!! I'd love to hear/see/watch your thought process as you get the system together. There's some real real nice gear out there.

Gonna check these out. My plan is to see if my FireWire interface still works w the new setup. I'm still torn between MADI and Ethernet. Are you concerned about Madi being phased out anytime soon? I love how time tested and reliable its reputation is.

kmetal, post: 438211, member: 37533 wrote: What happens when your shoulders deep in an effects heavy mix, and you want to lay down a guitar riff, or vocal overdub? Are you able to just create the track and hit record? Do you have to adjust buffers/freeze tracks, to do something like that?

Big topic but as hybrid or DAW advance, I've learned to think and mix different. It started with acquiring gear that was best designed for hybrid pro audio. Now that I've actually used the best gear made for a number of years, I am now able to emulate a lot more of what I thought was only able in analog.

To answer this in short.
Samplitude and Object based editing and using a lot less DAW crap makes for a really smooth studio.

(now this is just my crazy thinking) I think the inside of my head clashes with the real world when it comes to mixing.
What I mean here: Leave a bass line flat and play it back in your car and I bet you will go wow, does that sound smooth and full.

What I'm getting at... less is more and there are more times than not where I don't really even need anything more than the filters.
I also don't have a need for racks of plug-in running in the background. This keeps the DAW running smooth and tight. I also don't really start using any amount of plug-ins until the mixing stage.

My monitor control system, good room acoustic and channel filters are the basics. I find I need very little plug-ins today.
I'm certainly not saying my way is the only way but I sure have learned a lot since my first DAW system of 1998 to now. I never never need more than what is already in Samplitude. And if you think about it from a perfomance POV, a band sounds the way the band sounds. Why do I need a bag of tricks to change their sound? Good tracking is the key.
And when it comes to electronic music, nothing sounds better than the way synths sound flat to me. Samples, synths etc all sound insane today. The key is being able to hear what I am doing and not over eqing it all.

I have done a lot of tests and have now come to the conclusion that the monitor system and room is a lot more important than ever.The better I hear it, the less I am reaching for knobs to fix something.

Samplitude is a great DAW for me because it allows me to do the work I used to do on a console, on the object.
If a track needs something, I open it up on the object, do it THEN AND THERE , freeze it and its done. The DAW is just like a fresh session with nothing but its stock tools, fast a ready. The latency is very tolerable. When it comes to mixing, that's when I up the buffer and who cares.

kmetal, post: 438211, member: 37533 wrote: Chris (audiokid) identified the issue. It's what we are asking our gear to do. This is why I'm "maxing" my new daw CPU out before I turn it on. And even then i have modest expectations.

I made the mistake of having high expectations, and was fooled by marketing myself with a core duo laptop. It worked very well and reliably within the realms of audition, and reaper. Not so much with the digi design crap.

Yeah. Laptops are so terrible for multitracking. I have a really good i7 but its nothing like my desktop with PCIe slots and the interface to go with it.

audiokid, post: 438213, member: 1 wrote: Samplitude is a great DAW for me because it allows me to do the work I used to do on a console, on the object.
If a track needs something, I open it up on the object, do it THEN AND THERE , freeze it and its done. The DAW is just like a fresh session with nothing but its stock tools, fast a ready. The latency is very tolerable. When it comes to mixing, that's when I up the buffer and who cares.

I'm gassed about object based working. So are you saying that that in general your buffers/processing doesn't reach levels, where overdubbing latency would be an issue? Pcie connection seems to be the choice in all the top AV products. Seems like Dsp on the card handle some processing tasks, and the pcie is straight to the brain lol.

Are you using the cue mix functions in the card itself?

kmetal, post: 438212, member: 37533 wrote: Oooooohhhhhh do tell Chris!!! I'd love to hear/see/watch your thought process as you get the system together. There's some real real nice gear out there.

Gonna check these out. My plan is to see if my FireWire interface still works w the new setup. I'm still torn between MADI and Ethernet. Are you concerned about Madi being phased out anytime soon? I love how time tested and reliable its reputation is.

I excited. New mics are arriving ( just got a SF-24v) :love: LA2A's, 1176's for tracking and hybrid analog character. I'm using the Folcrom and Millennia M-2b for the analog core. Two DAW's, one Bricasti.
Not sure what Monitor controller and conversion yet, which will be the deciding factor on the interface.

With the exception of StudioLive Capture, Firewire I've used is too slow for multitrack/hybird mixing but ideal for capture in the kind of system I am referring to. The best interface I've used so far for multitracking is PCIe AES EBU or MADI. I'm sure interfacing is all going to improve very soon. I read very promising things for USB 3.1. (I think its that version). But I'm completely happy with AES EBU or MADI. Used cards are $800 now. Soon they will be had for $400. Interfacing is an ongoing evolution. All the rest of our gear will go along for the ride.

kmetal, post: 438215, member: 37533 wrote: I'm gassed about object based working. So are you saying that that in general your buffers/processing doesn't reach levels, where overdubbing latency would be an issue?

yes. I never top out with 64 tracks, 24 bus and 8 Aux. NOTE. The Master section is disabled.

This is why I use two DAW's as well.
DAW one for tracking and mixing,
DAW two, for capture and master.

kmetal, post: 438215, member: 37533 wrote: Are you using the cue mix functions in the card itself?

No, I use the Cue on the independent Monitor Control System and Little Red Cue made by Redo. But, I have always wanted a more elaborate cue system with independent EQing but the days of big tracking projects for me are no more. I'm more interested in collaborations projects, mixing or single artist producing. The Little Red Cue is just great for 4 people at once.

Did that answer you question?

kmetal, post: 438212, member: 37533 wrote: There's some real real nice gear out there.

Here is my thinking:
If analog gear is digitized, I think it may be more a gimmick but who knows. I don't trust analog to do what a plug-in does better. Or maybe said better, to pay for it when I feel a plug-in can do it ITB.
I'm believing, (once ITB) analog is best used sparsely and proficiently. Trannies make things smaller to my ears so I'd rather use hardware for very targeted sections over an entire console, which is why I loved the Neos. Its a killer analog summing console designed to take a serious whooping of analog arsenal yet remain transparent on the lanes that you do not want "smaller" analog insult. But it has faders and panning, a master section and a monitoring section all of which are completely useless to me so I sold it. ITB is way better there.

To my tests... its easy to make digital analog but its impossible to make analog back to unscathed digital. Once you add an analog pass, it absolutely smears it a bit.
I haven't set this up yet but I have a plan for the Folcrom and the M-2b.

Samplitude and ITB is all I need. Good analog tracking gear is essential. Then there are a few tricks for hybrid that I think make things interesting, colorful.

Monitoring and acoustics are everything. If I hear cause and effect, most of all I need is ITB and its easy to get it done on the object.

kmetal, post: 438212, member: 37533 wrote: There's some real real nice gear out there.

Indeed. Some new choices for monitor controllers but I still like the Dangerous Monitor ST.

What are your thoughts on digitized analog stuff like example: The Dangerous Compressor?

I think it may be more a gimmick but who knows. I don't trust analog to do what a plug-in does better. Or maybe said better, to pay for it when I feel a plug-in can do it ITB.
I'm believing, (once ITB) analog is best used sparsely and proficiently. Trannies make things smaller to my ears so I'd rather use hardware for very targeted sections over an entire console, which is why I loved the Neos. Its a killer analog summing console designed to take a serious whooping of analog arsenal yet remain transparent on the lanes that you do not want "smaller" analog insult. But it has faders and panning, a master section and a monitoring section all of which are completely useless to me so I sold it. ITB is way better there.

To my tests... its easy to make digital analog but its impossible to make analog back to unscathed digital. Once you add an analog pass, it absolutely smears it a bit.
I haven't set this up yet but I have a plan for the Folcrom and the M-2b.

Samplitude and ITB is all I need. Good analog tracking gear is essential. Then there are a few tricks for hybrid that I think make things interesting, colorful.

Monitoring and acoustics are everything. If I hear cause and effect, most of all I need is ITB and its easy to get it done on the object.

I hear ya Chris. when I think of digitally controlled analog I think of things like the bricasti, as well as something like a pultec w digital knobs/conversion built in. I see the computers role as a recorder and organizer of information. A nerve center. I think I use outboard and analog interchangeably, in my brain.

Something like a bricasti is perfect. Even though it's limited in channels (instances in pluggin terms), the fact that it's a digital signal processor gets around this, by allowing you to process and print without degradation, freeing the unit up for the next signal. I know this isn't how you employ it with your workflow, but the idea of an Dsp unit is the same. It does something a typical computer can't yet.

Gear is a tough sell to me if its not remote controllable, and doesn't fit in my pocket, or have the ability to be accessed from anywhere. It's strange how my perception has morphed. Ten years ago, it was painful, and almost seemed like a let down to pay money for software, or digital stuff. Now it seems ridiculous to spend big money on physical gear that eats spade and energy, and especially, the type of gear that just sits there most of the time.

I've spent weeks straight using a 15k trident 24 console as a table for the qwerty keyboard. It's eye opening. I'm planning a couple of external patch points for a spring verb, and another effect, which will be employed for 'effect' phase artifacts and re conversion degradation and all.

So far there isn't a better way to track, so a few quality input peices are necessary imho. But the largest illustration of signal degradation came to me this way.

Normandy just got finished, the control room done, and empty completely, barring the wall mount uries and the amps.

I listened for hours/days via iPod directly into amp. Just me and a chair. LIFE SIZE sound. Add motu audio interface, audio slightly worse. Add mackie big knob, sound utterly degraded, imaging phase girth, all effected significantly. Add large desk/mixing console, things got worse.

That's when I really discovered the whole master from the coffe table idea in reality. I've seen bob Katz doing in in videos, and there's the classic audiophile room with just speakers, and theater post rooms have a nice open area for the sound to develop, even if they have a console, there's not also a 8'x8' rack of hot noisey gear.

That's when I became obsessed with top notch conversion, and room/acoustics capable of handling full size, full range speakers and materials. This is not to think "Loud" at all. Rather "full" or "life size". It's essentially like watching a movie on a big screen vs say a computer screen or tablet. They all look good and have there place, but something about closing my eyes and the mental picture being like manicans in front me, instead of G.I Joe's, is addicting. Again nothing to do with loud, it doesn't have to be loud. It's rather more "space" or air molecules to work with.

I cringe when I see the rack-o-saurus walls and tables, and these cluttered rooms just barely bigger than the ssl they have. This is not jealously, rather, I just thinks it's an interference between the ears and music. If my gear can't work for me from the machine closet, it's a tough sell in my new era.

I'm already trying to figure out how to upgrade the amps that are built into my mackies, since new monitors aren't happening for a few years.