Nice. PSU looks good too. And even though FW is on the way out, they included this. What does that tell us? FW still rocks.

motorized faders option is a must for me. that's my gripe against the mackie onyx, and studio live boards. if you don't have motorized faders, why not just use a clean interface and a trident mixer, or whatever. good thing AH thought of that. Having used the gs series, i don't know that the pre's eq's are really worth twice as much as mackie's stuff for live work. that said, i think the AH is a better board on the low end side of the eq. and worth it if ya gonna get a board for a while.

I had moto faders in a yamaha console with pro tools. They impressed clients but in all honesty, the latency and cpu they took was a complete waste of money and resource. I wish it wasn't so and look forward to the day I don't need to use a stupid mouse. I think you have to spend a lot of money on them to work well. Maybe these are much better now. I think touch screens are the new control surface.

We've had threads here about the GS-R24 since details of it first leaked out of A+H a couple of years ago. Despite its excellent performance, my impression is that it hasn't sold as well as they had hoped. If that is the case, it may be due to what we mentioned in these forums, namely that the market had hoped for a 24-channel version of the ZED-R16 at a price that reflected only the additional channels and appropriate chassis expansion, but what A+H produced was a considerably more expensive unit that had many more frills, but the base system did not include things like motorized faders or built-in ADAT I/O.

The GS-R24 looked as though it was targeted not at project studios that wanted a bit more, but at the smaller pro studios, which have turned out to be a species that is chronically short of money in these difficult times. In essence, it's an engineering triumph that has fallen somewhat short at the marketing level.

hueseph, post: 395395 wrote: Like this touch screen?

Yes, but even more designs like we see on NCIS, CNN, apple 5 etc. And even a desk with a touch screen built into it that can be whatever your requirements are. That's what I think is coming. A big tablet.
Nothing like eye damage at 40. I'd still rather a real desk. We've spent 10 years trying to make plug-ins look real and sound sort of good lol.

Boswell ,audiokid ,DonnyThompson ,kmetal ,Kurt Foster dvdhawk Davedog
I realize this is an old thread but it's right on topic for me. With my physical plant completion date of mid 2018, I'm getting increasingly more serious about my workflow and components. Others here may know I've gone down the rabbit hole of DAW 1 > Analog Pass > DAW 2 ala Chris. Please see my equipment list under my profile to get an idea of the system I'm building. I'm still enamored with this setup and it continues to fit my needs in my very temporary rig while I finish construction on the roughly 1200 square foot studio (CR,Lrg. & Sml. Isos & Main Tracking Room).

For many reasons I am convinced I want a new hybrid (Analog and Digital controller)console and the GS R24 seems to fit the bill. (I think I do realize the other system changes/additions I would need to make to accommodate...firewire card, more ad/da, cabling, patchbay etc). I feel the onboard pres of the GS would be more than adequate for my needs and being able to use it as a controller for my DAW is a perfect fit...I just can't get used to so much work with a mouse. I'll have a small operation and no illusions of future grandeur. Boys just wanna have fun and I want to fulfill my life long desire of recording, mixing and playing in my retirement....making some cash along the way would be real nice too!

Soooo...my quandary is this; I have contacted A&H and the board is discontinued though many can still be had at multiple dealers. I'm still awaiting a response from Steinberg regarding interfacing with my Nuendo DAW. I am wondering about the need, if I go in this direction, for the motorized fader option or stick with non-motorized faders. I am strongly leaning toward non-motorized. Another question for consideration is would the Zed R16 be enough, if it can interface well, considering I could use the extra cash for more outboard pres?

I'm in over my head again but don't want to wait too long and miss out on a chance for a new board that may be a perfect fit for me. The support at A&H said they have no plans at this time of replacing the hybrid format and other boards out there are way above my cost restrictions. They did reassure me that they are still working on new drivers and plan to support the GS "...into the foreseeable future" .

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

You ask if the Zed-R16 would be enough, but we can't answer that, as it depends on your track count and your workflow.

I use a Zed-R16 for a lot of my two-box mixdowns, and usually only run out of channels when I have complex sub-mixes (e.g. a big drum kit). What I can do there is a sub-mix down to a stereo stem in advance, and then use only the stem when I come to the main mix. It does often mean going back and tweaking the sub-mix when I can't get it to fit properly in the full mix. Another advantage of this approach is that, if I have got the EQ, effects and dynamics roughly right in the stem, I can send the stem to one of the 4 stereo inputs of the Zed-R16 and so still have 16 mono channels left for other tracks.

For my two-box process, I usually source from one or more Alesis HD24XRs, often running at 96KHz. Two of those units can produce 24 tracks at the higher rates. I feed the XR's analogue outputs into the Zed-R16, as the Zed-R16's ADAT inputs do not support XMUX, i.e. double-track rate. My 2-track capture device varies depending on the task in hand, but it's important to keep in mind that the stereo ADC of the capture device is the single critical component in a two-box hybrid mixdown.

As an aside, you mention the cost difference in the mixers could be put into additional pre-amps. The Zed-R16's mic pre-amps continue to amaze me when I perform comparisons with much more expensive (per channel) external units, so I use external pre-amps when I need the character of the external unit rather than simply the quality. Note that if you want to use external pre-amps going in through the Zed-R16's line inputs, this route does not by-pass the Zed-R16's pre-amps. However, I'm assuming the recording phase of your workflow is separately catered for and you are considering the mixer principally as the central component in the mixdown process.

Honestly and I hate to say this lol, I think a berringer x-32 would do everything you need. Since you already have the dangerous st, monitoring is covered. Beyond that the console sounds good, has 32 motorized faders, and most importantly in a hybrid daw controller / mixer, Scibble Strips!!!

The digital dsp is good. It doesn't sound analog or digital. It's much more workable than an typical daw eq.

Also u could latch onto the beeringer personal monitoring system and give artists control fairly cheap, and with the forseeable 'future standard' cat5 wire. Cheap and easy. And good sounding too.

This whole setup costs less than the gsr24 and would leave a bit of cash left for a couple other toys like maybe a solid channel strip, or compresser. Even an LA-2 fits in the budget with the burrthinger mixer/monitoring system, when pinned against the already discontinued gsr24.

RME supports win xp still. Antelop Orion stopped supporting the device already 3 years later... So while AH is a good company, there's no real guratentee.

Old hardware is cool, old computer stuff, not quite so much.

With an all digital board you give up that tactile control of the eq knows per channel. But you also have instant recall. In a $10k board the eq is likely to be good, not great, when you figure the entire channel strip costs $416 assuming the the bus and master sections were free. My experience w both the zed and GL series ah stuff is the eqs are subtle. Which may or may not be good.

You could add some presonus Eureakas for 2-400 with a decent eq and excellent pre an compressor.

Also focusrite ISA 828s go for 2k brand new on Amazon. I can send you a link to the one sitting in me cart (waiting wishing) if you need/want.

The RANE peq-15 is a sleeper of an OB eq, and really can be not subtle or subtle. Sounds along the lines of DBx type thing. Pretty rock and roll and punchy.

To on boz's point about another ADC the money 'left over' could score you a Lavry 2ch adda for 2500, or a Burl 4ch ad for 3k.

I think the buttringer would more than adequately handle utilitarian stuff as well as any other sub $15k console would. Plus it's a bit more suited to hybrid. And the pres in general are ok, not great not bad. Connectivity is a cinch, and handle scribble strips save confusion. In a daw setting I think motorized faders are a must for instant viewing/moving, although I know Audiokid disagrees w that. The way I see it $5k gets you a console and headphones for a 5pc band. And leaves either less debt or room for some cool stuff.

The way I see it is you can fufill the daw/mixer tasks with enough money left over to get some high end conversion, and a couple awsome channel strips, or and 8ch pre and couple eqs. Something that you can use for tracking, and mixing assuming the ad sample rates line up.

Glad to hear the shops got a completion in site!!! There's no substitute for doing it right!!! Congrats!

Boswell, post: 440446, member: 29034 wrote: You ask if the Zed-R16 would be enough, but we can't answer that, as it depends on your track count and your workflow .

Sorry about that oversight. Here is my planned workflow right now.
I want to be able to track up to 32 mono channels from an analog board plus outboard pres through a high quality ADC to DAW 1. Then I want to be able to mix ITB on Daw1 utilizing this same board as a DAW controller for such (It's somewhat embarrassing that I'm really not sure how this all happens???MIDI,Firewire, Thunderbolt, USB??? I apologize for my lack of knowledge about such things but it's past time for me to learn. Wish I had others to sit with and learn from closer than 125 miles from here.)

From there I plan to send stems out from Box 1 to an analog pass (Folcrom/mixing board >pre> other possible analog gear) and finally into my Box 2 for final sample rate conversion, 2 channel mix/"master" to my final 2bus capture, whatever that might be. I will be using the Dangerous ST monitor for referencing Box 1, analog pass between boxes through outboard pres etc. and Box2. I want to use the board auxes/groups and possibly 2bus to feed my 8 channels of hearback system personal mixers for performers during tracking and dubbing. This workflow description may not be comprehensive enough or even possible, but only being able to do this mostly as a mental walkthrough/exercise, I likely have missed or not correctly thought out or understood my workflow concepts.

As you have noted Bos, a drum kit can eat up a lot of channels and on top of that, multiple keyboards and at times various percussion pieces besides multiple vocals and stereo guitar cab DI's and mics as well as possible room mics. That being said, I do presently have 9 outboard pre channels and 16 on the mixer for a grand total of 25. I want all my recording to the DAW1 to go in through my Aurora 16 and realize I will need an additional ADC, most likely another Aurora 16 or possibly an Orion 32 and sell the Aurora I have. I think having 32 channels for recording into the DAW will allow me the ample flexibility and options I desire without breaking the bank too hard. Maybe overkill but I do have a tendency to feel more comfortable that way, plus, I can be a bit lazy as well. Financially, I need to have a system pretty well set before I retire because my options are extremely limited at that point 2 years from now and what I have then will likely be all I can afford for a very long time if ever.

I'm not sure if I gave enough info to address my questions or just confused matters worse. From what I can decipher, the Zed would feed the DAW with it's own ADC during tracking...is this right? No analog direct outs. So, I'm wondering if I would be compromising the AD/DA quality I already have in the Aurora. I may be way off base here and don't mean to be dissing the Zed, I just don't know enough about this.

With the Zed R16 plus my 9 outboard pre channels, I would want to add another 7 pre channels to my rig to reach a full 32. This could provide more "color" options with outboard pres but less control surface ease and capability for mixing ITB, assuming I understand the use of either board as a DAW controller for mixing,...which may not be the case! And I'm guessing the additional 9 pre channels could cost up to around the difference between the Zed R16 and the GS. If I went with the GS, I'd have ample on-board quality pres and 32 channels of ADC in Box 1 for outboard pre options as well. I guess it's pretty obvious the way I'm leaning but this may be based upon my lack of experience, misunderstandings, unwarranted fears and ignorance..... probably all of those things.

Am I way of base strongly considering the GS??? If not, thoughts about motorized verses un-motorized?? Moving sliders are cool but the DAW will have the saved settings/automation anyway right?

kmetal, post: 440450, member: 37533 wrote: Honestly and I hate to say this lol, I think a berringer x-32 would do everything you need.

OUCH! Oh my! Seriously?? I don't know. I'll have to read up on that one.

kmetal, post: 440450, member: 37533 wrote: Also u could latch onto the beeringer personal monitoring system and give artists control fairly cheap, and with the forseeable 'future standard' cat5 wire. Cheap and easy. And good sounding too.

Got that covered with my Hear Technologies 8 channel setup and personal Hear Back mixers.

kmetal, post: 440450, member: 37533 wrote: The way I see it is you can fufill the daw/mixer tasks with enough money left over to get some high end conversion, and a couple awsome channel strips, or and 8ch pre and couple eqs. Something that you can use for tracking, and mixing assuming the ad sample rates line up.

A lot to consider here and I do see your point...much appreciated!

kmetal, post: 440450, member: 37533 wrote: Glad to hear the shops got a completion in site!!! There's no substitute for doing it right!!! Congrats!

Thanks so much! Sounds good in theory but right now I'd be happy to be able to stand up straight without pain shooting down my left leg....Pace John....pace man.....all in due time! It's already been 8 years so I best not rush the finale!

vibrations1951, post: 440451, member: 34341 wrote: Am I way of base strongly considering the GS??? If not, thoughts about motorized verses un-motorized?? Moving sliders are cool but the DAW will have the saved settings/automation anyway right?

Two things i see as negatives or limiting factors w the GS, discontinuation aside.

1- no scribble strips. This makes it very difficult to keep track of what track your on. So when your banking through faders to get where you need to be they'll be no indication of what track each fader is controlling. You could use console tape and pre map layers but in the heat of the moment when you've created those extra 3 backup vocal tracks, you don't wanna be scratching your head. This is made worse if the (unmotorized) faders don't correspond visually to the mixer screen.

I'm sure it's something you could get used to and develop a workflow for but I'm not sure it's ideal.

I only mention this becuase using a mackie d8b (digital console) in hui mode as a control surface was difficult due to the tiny track names on the screen. It was an interfence. My eye sight sucks, so maybe I am over emphasizing. Also using the mackie MCU daw controller was fairly difficult becuase they only allowed like 5 characters in the track name LDC and it auto abbreviated whatever you'd labeled in the daw. This was made worse by the level meter cutting of some characters of your levels went that high.

It's both obnoxious to the engineer, and doesn't reflect well in front of the client to always be like "which track is this". Maybe I'm over emphasizing. But frankly if it was this difficult with poor scribble strips I can imagine what it's like without them.

2. Motorized faders- no visual readout of your mix. So what your seeing isn't necessarily what's there. So even if your on the right physical fader, unless you haven't banked around, your gonna have to adjust the fader until it hits where it actually is in the daw, and then it will start to register change. This is not only somewhat defeating the purpose of a physical apparatus that represents your Daw mix screen, it's time consuming, and a bit off putting. When your instincts tell you oooohh bring that vocal up a db, and you've gotta move the fader halfway up for it register a change, it's unartistic. It also adds up to time. Given the thousands of adjustments in a mix it could add up to minutes or hours of basically dead time adjusting the faders to the point where they register.

Again it's probably something you get used to, but to me kinda a bad compromise given the whole point is to have a physical representation of the computer screen.

If this board was mostly for live use, or for monitoring mixer, or just a summing mixer, then it might be a compromise worth making since your not constantly adjusting these.

If you take a look at any of the serious DAW controllers they all have motorized faders. Even the lower level ones do. It's usually the ones on keyboard controllers that don't. Ditto for scribble strips. The berringer control surface is the only one I can think of that doesn't have scribble strips. That and the pre sonus fader port, but that's a single channel unit and snaps to whatever track is highlighted in the daw.

Again just imho.

Cheers man.!

Hey K, you make some valid points. I'm gonna need to look closer at the whole idea of all pres separate from a board with primarily a good control surface verses a board that will adequately perform DAW control as well as good professional level pres.

My Nuendo 4 is so old and my Mac Pro needs upgrading as well, I need to consider those costs in the mix as well. I originally got into Nuendo thinking I could expand my market doing Post Production work. I've since given that idea up. So I may be ending up starting from scratch with a new DAW, which I could then match up better with a desirable control surface/hybrid mixer for ITB mixing. I still feel the 2 box with analog pass will serve me well.

My hangup right now is how to get a control surface well matched to a DAW with as intuitive a physical operation as possible. I don't like touch screens and want to get away from a mouse as much as possible. I want to have up to 32 channels analog recording with outboard ADC and possibly at least 24-32 channel DAW control without too many menus.

It still looks to me like this can't be had for what I can afford and perhaps I need to crawl back into my hole and wait until I'm ready to open for business/fun. That way I can take advantage of the newest technology with things continuing to change so fast. I firmly believe the rooms will be a big factor in my setup as well as the talent. Tools are important but it's the experience and use of them by the craftsman behind the tools that counts more.

Any more thoughts or suggestions are more than welcome!
My best to you!

There just doesn't seem to be a perfect hybrid yet. Here's an off the top of my head example.

New / Retail pricing:

Mackie MCU Pro-1,099
8 fader extension- 749 (x 3)

= 3,346 (32 faders / transport)
= 2,597 (24 faders / transport)

Focusrite ISA 824-2,000

=8,000 (32 ch pre amps)

Totals.

= 11,346 (32 faders / 32 ch pre)
= 10,597 (24 faders / 32 ch pre)

You could also swap out 2 isa units and add a true systems precision 8 preamp (2,700) and a focusrite octopre mk2 (500).

= 10,546 (32 faders / 32 ch pre)
= 9,796 (24 faders / 32 ch pre)

If you substitute the octa pre with an audient ASP 880 (1,400)

= 11,446 (32 faders / 32 ch pre)
= 10,696 (24 faders / 32 ch pre)

Do an asp 800 instead (850)

= 10,896 (32/32)
= 10,416 (24/32)

The octa pre and asp pres have built in ad via adat/lightpipe channel counts vary depending on unit and sample rate. The ISA has the option card for $500, but you immediately give up channel count about 44.1k sample rate.

Now none of these are what you call 'character pres' but none of them are junk. Even the octa pre which I've used along side Manley and Eureakas for a few years for drums. They're clean high headroom units.

I have no experience w the asp but would imagine they're likely better or just as good.

In my experience it's the first 16 channels that get used the most. Typical drum setup would be 14 pres.

So maybe you swap in a couple Api 3124+ (5,500) ISA 828 (2000) the true pre 8 (2700) and an asp800 (850)

For 11,050 in pres + 2,600 for 24 faders/trans

= 13,650. (Ouch / yay)
= 14,400 (32 faders)

That's 24 ch of solid pro pres no compromise. Bring it to 20 ch by removing an API and your around 11,550. 12k when you ad an octa pre to get (past)32ch.

There's certainly nothing to be shy about 4ch api, 8 ISA, 8 precision, and 8 ch asp, and 8 ch octa. All for around 12k w the control surface.

When in the api price range for 4 channels the options open up wide. So you could really swap in quite a few units in the example that has 8ch of api.

Things like the octo pre are plenty fine of handling the DI side of guitars and basses, hi hats, things of that nature. Although their used regularly on kick and snare like I said next to a Manley for OH at one of the studios I work at.

Overall a console will give you more channels and eq for the similar money, but perhaps less integral pre amps and certainly less colours to choose.

basically in those examples sonically it's

Pre 8 - very clean
ISA 828- clean
API 324- color transformer style
Asp/octa- utilitarian

There's nothing about this that's cheap, and there's certainly a ton of options. There's so few options for control surfaces it's absurd. The avid artist mix is a $150 or so more per 8ch unit, but uses a eucon protocal not hui. It seems that the berringer x32 only does 8 faders of control in hui mode.

The artist mix also connects via Ethernet so it's going to be more responsive than the mackie mcu, which uses midi. The artist mix is compatible with most, not all software. It's on sale at vintage king right now for 1k.

Having used the MCU for many hours I can say they are decent. They have a slight lag to them enough to notice, but not be truly obtrusive. The readout on the pan knob is not very accurate but you can see your daw mixer.

Personally I'm interested in the artist series stuff. It's a decent price point, good reputation, expandable, and uses Ethernet which is undoubtably the future of connection, especially for data.

Anyways man not trying to hog the thread but I figured I'd illustrate some stuff in the price range of the gsr (motorized). I literally just went through this type of gear spec'ing for my own potential setup.

Fwiw my money is on the Orion 32+ Thunderbolt/USB for a multichannel interface. I am spec'ing a multiple surround refernce system, and it ticks the boxes for pro quality (not boutique) and channel count. It's got great latency spec via TB. Dsp can be useful for some.

The best thing about the Orion is even though it's 32x32 into / out of the daw it's adat can be used seperately to pipe channels somewhere else like a redundant computer, or a set of speakers elsewhere. So that's another 4-16ch that can be used as well, depending on sample rate.

That's gonna get you gear that ranges from 'out of the way' to quite good. Nothing that will deliver less quality than a 10-15k desk. And while maybe the octa and asp800 won't win any awards, how many times are you be up above 16-24 channels at once.

A lot of work gets done 1-4ch at a time, and drums are a real drain becuase they are arguably the most important besides vocals for pro production, and require the most mics (or not 4-6 goes a long way) in a room like yours, but they're usually recorded fairly quickly, relative to the rest of the project. So it's a lot of money for the gear for the first few days of every new tracking session. The rest of the time most of the pres just sit there. Especially the 8ch units. That's said there's always DI and room/distan mic duties and quality makes a difference there too for gtrs keys percussion.

Rant done.

Artist mix compatibility. Sorry for the get it now box, avid is so ruthless they advertise their own stuff on their own site. Ugh

Man K, you have done your research!
I can't thank you enough for taking the time to share all the info and leg work you've put in!

I've worked the math many ways as well and for under 15k, the options are limited.
I do have 9 decent outboard pre channels and a Mix Wiz 16 which doubles for FOH for live. I could go with 1 Artist Mix right now and it should work fine with my existing Mac Pro 10.6 with Nuendo 4 without upgrades necessary. I could still mouse around for transport for now. I'm accustomed to just using the 1 Aurora 16 I have for Box 1 ADC so that wouldn't need to change any time soon (I agree about the Orion 32 and may upgrade to it or just get another Aurora 16 in the future).

This could be a reasonable way to get my feet wet so to speak. If this works out for me I could begin to slowly expand, eventually adding pre variations to my needs and tastes, taking my Mix Wiz out of the line up for live use only. This could give me some much needed hands on experience with minimal cash outlay up front. I would have fairly resalable units to resell if it didn't work out for me and in the meantime build my pre inventory with units I would be keeping.

I've owned and used the Octopre in the past and I think you are spot on about it's "utilitarian" class. I have been strongly considering the ISA 824 for some time but haven't had the opportunity to try/use it. I do agree with Bos about the quality of the Zed pres which I believe are the same in the GS R24. I don't feel very comfortable about the GS being discontinued either but:

The problems I see for me are the integration/use of either the R16 or the R24 as control surfaces in my present set up. They would end up being MIDI communications with my DAW as far as I can tell and take a lot of tweaking to get them to work only so so. I would also have to invest over 1k to upgrade my system for compatibility right now when I'm bleeding cash for construction. I may be wrong about this and perhaps Bos can straighten me out here.

This conversation is helping me loads. I really want any comments I can get about my thought process to this point.

I really feel ready to make a step in this direction. I recently picked up a Faderport and that tweaked this whole process for me. Gotta go.
Thanks to you as well Bos for your thoughts.
Don't know what I would do w/o you guys and this forum!

I'm getting a rather fuzzy picture about exactly where you would want to use the hardware mixer in your recording and mixing workflow.

You have talked about the quality of the mixer's pre-amps, so presumably you see it being involved in the recording phase, essentially as a set of microphone pre-amps, although you would also use external pre-amps to get a different colour or other features.

You have also talked about the use of the mixer as the analogue mixdown device in a two-box process. This, of course, takes line-level inputs and mixes down to a stereo pair of line-level outputs. Depending on the type of mixer, you could be sending it the multiple source tracks in a digital form, and it could also be handing you back a digitised 2-track mix, having performed its own D-A and A-D before and after the analogue mix.

The other usage you have talked about is that of a control surface for setting and varying the parameters of a mix performed in your DAW. Mixers like the Zed-R16 have an assignable set of MIDI buttons and sliders for control surface use as well as being able to switch the fader of any of the analogue channels to generate a MIDI variable parameter. Your worry that they would "take a lot of tweaking to get them to work only so so" in my view is unfounded for straightforward DAW and transport control.

Can you set priorities as you see them on these functions in your intended workflow?

My fuzzy picture of your intended system also has both in-the-box mixing and external mixing. Perhaps I am wrong about the former, and you require the control-surface facilites for control of EQ, effects or dynamics of the source tracks in the DAW prior to sending out for external mixing.

vibrations1951, post: 440462, member: 34341 wrote: I could still mouse around for transport for now

At the studio the numeric section of the qwerty keyboard controls the transport and loop modes. Space bar is start/stop. There's likely a way to do this in nuendo. I think its stock in most DaW's.

Don't know enough about hybrid / multi daw systems to comment on them, so still lurking around on that.

kmetal, post: 440467, member: 37533 wrote: At the studio the numeric section of the qwerty keyboard controls the transport and loop modes. Space bar is start/stop. There's likely a way to do this in nuendo. I think its stock in most DaW's.

Don't know enough about hybrid / multi daw systems to comment on them, so still lurking around on that.

Most DAW's (except Studio One) have a siliocne numeric keyboard overlay that shows all the keyboard shortcuts...you can even buy dedicated keyboards for the task.

http://www.zcover.com/zCover_Product_Keyboard_Cubase.htm

http://logickeyboard.com/shop/steinberg-cubase-nuendo-931s1.html

or you can buy the sticker sets

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0010YLXCO/?tag=r06fa-20

Boswell, post: 440465, member: 29034 wrote: I'm getting a rather fuzzy picture about exactly where you would want to use the hardware mixer in your recording and mixing workflow.

I can see how I've been all over the place and fuzzed things up....sorry about that. I'll try to refine my thoughts better.

I presently use outboard pres and or the Mix Wiz Direct outs for recording in Box 1 (Aurora 16 AD/DA, PCIe card, Lynx AES 16e,Mac Pro 3.1, OSX 10.6.8, Nuendo 4.1.2)
Then mix/edit ITB with mouse and Faderport. I usually track at 48/88.2, 24bit.

Next I send Stems/individual channels from DAW 1 > Aurora 16 >Folcrom 16 > 2 channel pre of choice (UA 2-610/AEA RPQ/Phoenix ) >Antelope Pure 2 into Daw 2 (Samplitude Pro x2 Suite USB,) for further processing ("mastering"/ final mixing and sample rate conversion if needed for final 2 bus capture).

I monitor Box 1, analog pass between boxes and Box 2 with the Dangerous ST. I presently send individual mixes out through my Hear Technologies 8 channel system via auxes on the Mix Wiz, mults from the outboard pres, and/Aurora DA. This changes around a lot and I still don't feel good about the best performer monitoring yet.

The place for the hardware mixer would be up front with Box 1 for tracking, monitoring and mixing, not in the analog pass between boxes or with Box 2.

Boswell, post: 440465, member: 29034 wrote: Can you set priorities as you see them on these functions in your intended workflow?

I feel my first priority is having a compatible control surface for complete ITB mixing in DAW 1
Then I would want to keep passing the stems in the same way I am now (DAW 1>DAC> Folcrom >pre and any outboard gear of choice >Box 2).

Second priority is to increase my number of quality pres for recording. High quality EQ's onboard would be a bonus.
My hope was to mainly use a hardware mixer for tracking.

Third and fourth would be the ability of the mixer to send performer mixes during recording to my Hear system as well as have the flexibility to use inserts for some potential outboard gear during tracking as well.

*As an afterthought I probably should have started with cost as priority #1. If I am going to get my shop off the ground in the next 2 years, completing my workflow-components requires a budget of about $15K.

I'm grateful that you are patient and helping me zero in Bos and most of all that you and others here haven't given up on me yet. If I had the opportunity to be more experienced, even in my own workflow, I could likely be more precise. My desire to get there so to speak, often causes me to "put the cart before the horse", so I apologize
for my nubiness!

I hope this makes my quandary easier to understand and respond to.

kmetal, post: 440467, member: 37533 wrote: At the studio the numeric section of the qwerty keyboard controls the transport and loop modes. Space bar is start/stop. There's likely a way to do this in nuendo. I think its stock in most DaW's.

I mis-spoke! Duh! I in fact can and often do use my Nuendo keyboard for all that! Sure would be nice to say goodbye mousy!

kmetal, post: 440467, member: 37533 wrote: At the studio the numeric section of the qwerty keyboard controls the transport and loop modes. Space bar is start/stop. There's likely a way to do this in nuendo. I think its stock in most DaW's.

Sean G, post: 440468, member: 49362 wrote: Most DAW's (except Studio One) have a siliocne numeric keyboard overlay that shows all the keyboard shortcuts...you can even buy dedicated keyboards for the task.

So embarrased here...OF COURSE! I already use my Nuendo Keypad that way more all the time! I think it's time to shut my mouth and crash...very long and stressful week...thanks guys!

damn...I forgot to mention that Steinberg Support got back to me today and said:
"Cubase and Nuendo use the same Remote Control setups. "
More good info for my search. I had thought and hoped that this was the case.
I will still probably need to upgrade my DAW to N7 and possibly my Mac Pro to 10.8.

Boswell, post: 440446, member: 29034 wrote: Note that if you want to use external pre-amps going in through the Zed-R16's line inputs, this route does not by-pass the Zed-R16's pre-amps

Bos, (Boswell ) this caught my eye when I first read it the other day, and I had to go back to look at it again which raised the odd question for me, which leads me to ask, as you are our resident authority on matters such as this...

I have the A & H Zed12FX, is it the same senario when I use the line inputs of the Zed 12FX ?... that it does not bypass the onboard pre amps ?

The reason behind my question, I have been playing around with a 2 box set-up recently, although I have not run through the A & H Zed 12 FX as yet, I was considering if running out of the outputs of my Presonus 1818vsl (can only use 6 outs so may have to group stems to suit the 6 inputs of the Zed 12) then into the Zed12FX as a summing box / mix down then either using the USB output on the Zed12fx to my laptop into Studio One...or...running out of the main outs as a stereo mix then into a secondary interface / converter then into the laptop / DAW2.

Is it possible this way with the Zed12FX ? How can I use the A & H Zed12FX this way if I cannot bypass the pre-amps ?

Apologies to the OP for using this thread to answer this question, but what Bos stated got me thinking and I just could not let it go :rolleyes:

I think I may have read in a previous thread Bos you may use your Zed R16 in the way I discribe ???...Am I mistaken...or is this approach only applying to the Zed R 16 as opposed to the Zed12FX ?

Yes, the line inputs of the Zed-12/16/22FX by-pass the microphone pre-amps, where on the Zed-R16 they are attenuated and passed through the pre-amps.

That said, the pre-amps on the Zed-R16 and GS-R24 are noticeably superior to those in the FX series, and I haven't knowingly suffered from signal quality problems using the line inputs. Before deciding that route was the one to use, I did comparisons between the line inputs and sending unbalanced versions of the signals into the insert returns (which of course inject after the pre-amps), and I could not tell the difference at normal levels. Only when the signals were pushing into overload was there anything detectable between the two. However, for most of my 44.1KHz work, I send ADAT into the Zed-R16, since the channel DACs really do by-pass the pre-amps.

Thanks Bos, I was always under the impression that the line imput with the Zed12FX did bypass the pre-amps, its good to have some clarification.

Knowing your first hand experience with the ZedR16 I thought it was worth clarifying for my sake.

I suppose like anything in this game, its all trial and error...I will give it a try and see the outcome and maybe post the result.;)

Boswell
As I continue to think this all through I keep getting stuck on a question about conversion quality.
With your experience Bos, how would you say the Lynx Aurora compares with the ADC and DAC of the Zed R16?

vibrations1951, post: 440481, member: 34341 wrote: Boswell
As I continue to think this all through I keep getting stuck on a question about conversion quality.
With your experience Bos, how would you say the Lynx Aurora compares with the ADC and DAC of the Zed R16?

I'd put the Aurora and only a very few others in the uppermost class - that's one above the Zed-R16 converters.

Boswell, post: 440482, member: 29034 wrote: I'd put the Aurora and only a very few others in the uppermost class - that's one above the Zed-R16 converters.

Thanks Bos.
I'm trying to figure out if I could track with the ZED into my Daw with the firewire and at the same time track with my outboard pres through the Aurora if I need more than 16 channels for tracking.
(If I wanted, I could always use inserts for the outboard pres into the ZED if I have open channels on the ZED and am understanding the signal paths correctly).
Does this make any sense?

Hmm. Doing that sort of thing depends on the integrity of the Aggregate I/O system in the Mac to deal with that number of channels from different physical devices. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that there are limits to what is likely to give reliable operation.

On the other hand, taking outboard pre-amps into the insert returns of a mixer and thence into a computer is a standard procedure. However, do bear in mind that insert jacks of mixers in this cost bracket are usually unbalanced, resulting in the need for either special wiring or the use of balun transformers in the path. Only by examining the output characteristics of the individual pre-amps can you determine which methods will work for this technique.

Boswell, post: 440484, member: 29034 wrote: Hmm. Doing that sort of thing depends on the integrity of the Aggregate I/O system in the Mac to deal with that number of channels from different physical devices. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that there are limits to what is likely to give reliable operation.

On the other hand, taking outboard pre-amps into the insert returns of a mixer and thence into a computer is a standard procedure. However, do bear in mind that insert jacks of mixers in this cost bracket are usually unbalanced, resulting in the need for either special wiring or the use of balun transformers in the path. Only by examining the output characteristics of the individual pre-amps can you determine which methods will work for this technique.

I don't really know any easy or reliable way to go about assessing the Mac Pro's ability to do this in my setup so I guess it will be a try it and see thing. I can probably use the equipment I have on hand to test this. I'll try to get at that soon and report back.

In the past I have used Mackie VLZ inserts for sends for tracking with a snake cable I modified for this but never tried adding pres through an insert. Probably my best bet in this scenario would be to use the Line ins of the ZED without much worry due to the quality of the onboard pres???

I'd rather stay with balanced signal transfer wherever possible. I don't know what balun transformers are so I'll look that up.

The option of creating special wiring may be possible as well for me yet at first read, it seems like this could mean a special cable for each pre depending their output jack variables. This could get complicated over time and I could see myself making wiring mistakes often.

Did you mean that I could wire cables to create a balanced signal from and unbalanced Jack??? Probably not...I really don't see how that could work but I certainly don't know enough to say.

Thanks again Bos.

Boswell, post: 440478, member: 29034 wrote: However, for most of my 44.1KHz work, I send ADAT into the Zed-R16, since the channel DACs really do by-pass the pre-amps.

So the zed receives a digital set of tracks/stems and then sums them in the analog output section to the capture daw?

Sorry don't mean to sidetrack things here.

Boswell, post: 440482, member: 29034 wrote: I'd put the Aurora and only a very few others in the uppermost class - that's one above the Zed-R16 converters.

Any ideas on how the antelope Orion 32/32+ fares among these?

Also would the connection type affect conversion quality. In general among different units is forward interface vs USB? Or in the Orion 32+ case where it's both USB and Thunderbolt?

Again sorry for any side tracking.

vibrations1951, post: 440485, member: 34341 wrote: The option of creating special wiring may be possible as well for me yet at first read, it seems like this could mean a special cable for each pre depending their output jack variables. This could get complicated over time and I could see myself making wiring mistakes often.

Did you mean that I could wire cables to create a balanced signal from and unbalanced Jack??? Probably not...I really don't see how that could work but I certainly don't know enough to say.

There are really only a few common balanced output types: (a) both polarities of signal separately driven, (b) transformer output with centre-tap grounded, (c) floating transformer, and (d) electronic pseudo-transformer. To tap an unbalanced output from types (a) and (b) you need to take only the +ve signal and ground to the ring and sleeve respectively of the insert plug. Leave the -ve output and the jack tip unconnected. This method loses 6dB of signal, which you have to make up somewhere downstream. For types (c) and (d), it's probably OK to connect the +ve output to the ring and both the -ve output and ground to the sleeve. There is no amplitude loss.

kmetal, post: 440492, member: 37533 wrote: So the zed receives a digital set of tracks/stems and then sums them in the analog output section to the capture daw?

Yes, the Zed-R16 has 16 D-A converters (one on each mono input) fed by a selectable combination of ADAT and FireWire inputs. By pushing buttons adjacent to the channel faders, you can select the output of the DAC for that channel instead of the output of the pre-amp. You mix as normal, as the downstream parts of the mixer do not know where the signal at the top of the fader has come from. For completeness, I should mention that each mono channel also has an ADC, and there is also a stereo ADC on the mix bus.

kmetal, post: 440493, member: 37533 wrote: Any ideas on how the antelope Orion 32/32+ fares among these? Also would the connection type affect conversion quality. In general among different units is forward interface vs USB? Or in the Orion 32+ case where it's both USB and Thunderbolt?

Well, it's all subjective at this level, but I would put the Orion in the top bracket along with the Aurora and only a few others. The connection method has no effect on the audio quality, provided no samples are dropped or corrupted. However, the stability and jitter of the conversion clock has a major influence on the audio (in both directions).

Boswell, post: 440501, member: 29034 wrote: There are really only a few common balanced output types: (a) both polarities of signal separately driven, (b) transformer output with centre-tap grounded, (c) floating transformer, and (d) electronic pseudo-transformer. To tap an unbalanced output from types (a) and (b) you need to take only the +ve signal and ground to the ring and sleeve respectively of the insert plug. Leave the -ve output and the jack tip unconnected. This method loses 6dB of signal, which you have to make up somewhere downstream. For types (c) and (d), it's probably OK to connect the +ve output to the ring and both the -ve output and ground to the sleeve. There is no amplitude loss.

Thanks for that info Bos. It will help as I work through my thinking and planning more.
Another question coming up for me is about motorized verses un-motorized faders. I'm enamored with the thought of motorized but wonder if it is something I could live without, considering the trade offs and workarounds I've read about here and elsewhere.

I can see why it could be a hassle resetting faders manually by reading the project settings, channel by channel and take time as well. Probably like so much else, it's a personal preference thing.
I wondered if you would mind commenting on your personal experience and preferences?

I used to be a real fan of motorised faders, but have to say I haven't missed them as much as I thought I would on the Zed-R16. A great deal depends on your style of mixing and whether you need to have continual level adjustments on several tracks during the course of each song. Most of my recent work has been live recording, and surprisingly those sessions need less fader riding than the studio ones.

I've talked in other posts about sourcing my mix tracks directly from a pair of HD24XR hard disc recorders (on which they were recorded live), but this is largely for convenience. If there is significant fader work needed during songs, I copy the raw tracks to a DAW and replay them from there instead of from the HD24XRs so I can set (repeatable) level envelopes on tracks that need it. That means I can pretty much use a single level setting per track for the analogue mix knowing that any fader riding needed for the track rather than the mix is already taken care of.

Boswell, post: 440503, member: 29034 wrote: That means I can pretty much use a single level setting per track for the analogue mix knowing that any fader riding needed for the track rather than the mix is already taken care of.

I'm still trying to get my head around this.

OK , let's say I'm writing slider changes on a track in my DAW with the ZED as the control surface. I then close the DAW project, saving the slider automation on that track.

Then I re-open the project and want to do further slider changes with that track, as a whole or within that saved track, using the ZED as controller.
I look at that track's opening-slider-level in the DAW mixer, set that same channel-slider-level on the control surface (ZED r16) and proceed to adjust the level of the whole track.

1. Would doing this cause me to lose or mess with my automated changes?
2. Would slider changes or editing with the ZED within the track be possible at this point without messing up saved changes and having to start from scratch?

The main reason I'm trying to get a better understanding is that, at this point, I think I'm down to a choice between a stand alone control surface, for about half the cost of the ZED r16, or the ZED. Either will do me for a while and help inform any needed future choices I may need to make.
I'm really favoring the ZED for many many reasons...

These questions are not really a consequence of setting up for hybrid mixing but more related to how your particular DAW behaves. What I was describing was the need to deal with level anomalies within each track before submitting the tracks as mix sources, and then using the real-time analogue mix to assemble the song so that each constituent track is at a correct artistic level relative to the others. This may vary over the course of the song because of the dynamic flow, and it's this dynamic variation that is done at the hybrid stage.

It's made more complicated when you bring in compression. My starting rule of thumb is to use in-line compression as required in the DAW and parallel compression in the analogue mix. However, a track can also be brought from the DAW into the analogue mix via a compressor, so the compressor is considered neither as part of the DAW nor a specific function of the mixer - it's part of the overall process.

Boswell, post: 440508, member: 29034 wrote: These questions are not really a consequence of setting up for hybrid mixing but more related to how your particular DAW behaves. What I was describing was the need to deal with level anomalies within each track before submitting the tracks as mix sources, and then using the real-time analogue mix to assemble the song so that each constituent track is at a correct artistic level relative to the others. This may vary over the course of the song because of the dynamic flow, and it's this dynamic variation that is done at the hybrid stage.

It's made more complicated when you bring in compression. My starting rule of thumb is to use in-line compression as required in the DAW and parallel compression in the analogue mix. However, a track can also be brought from the DAW into the analogue mix via a compressor, so the compressor is considered neither as part of the DAW nor a specific function of the mixer - it's part of the overall process.

Thanks Bos. From reading other threads about motorized verses non-motorized consoles I was noting that functions did seem to be DAW specific.

I now think I see what you mean about your process of managing levels at different passes of the mix.

I like your preference of using parallel compression in the analog pass of the 2Box setup. If I understand this correctly, it seems it would provide the opportunity to add just the right amount of compression to the finalizing path of the mix w/o slamming it too hard before Box 2. I may be wrong but I also think it would add a bit more "analog warmth", a good place for my 2-LA-2 although I'm not getting how to do this but all in good time!

As I dig deeper into understanding the ZED I think I could use in three ways rather than just recording and control surface for DAW 1.
1. Analog tracking to Box 1 through Firewire
2. DAW control surface for Box 1
3. Passing the DA output of DAW 1 stems through via firewire to then add outboard gear through inserts or not/add EQ or not/ and final 2 bus pass to my Pure 2 ADC for final polish.

Am I making any sense or am I all over the place again?

Boswell, post: 440501, member: 29034 wrote: However, the stability and jitter of the conversion clock has a major influence on the audio (in both directions).

Would connection type ie USB, TB, FireWire, madi, Effect the clocking ability, if all else was the same?

If so is there preferred connection for stable clocking?