Congratulations,you're definitely not Clueless:
This is pretty much what the big boys are doing. That is, using the daw as a tape recorder (in essense) and mixing on an analog desk. It's one reason why all the studio's that I work @ are doing most of their sessions in PT. IF they had to mix in the daw completely I don't think you'd have people using it as much.

For the past two days, I was tracking at Scott Mathews Next Step studio on his Virtuosso console. And I mean it sounds great as a front end to PT HD! Man that thing has headroom, it's real quiet, and the comps aren't bad at all. Definately THE way to record-with an analog console!

I was doing this when I was an assistant but instead of a DAW the studio I worked in used Tascam DA 88 tape decks, feeding them to a Trident Vector 432 board. Back then the converters were 16 bit, so the serie of transitions in and out the machines and the final mixdown to DAT tape was kind of a compromise, and what I used to monitor from the board wasn't the same as what I got back from the DAT deck.

So I guess that we can stand a D/A and A/D transitions even if the converters aren't Prism or Apogee isn't it? I feared that once a source it's being tracked to digital it's better for it to stay there and only become analog again only once it gets played back by a pair of speakers, or that this process it's only feasible if you get the best converters; Ok, don't get me wrong but MOTU's converters aren't the most high fidelity (but do sound good), so if what we get in the analog processing is more than what we loose in the transition...well the trick is done (even if you don't have an SSL).

One question: if we use the analog board as the dynamic processing and summing stage, and automation is done in the DAW, is there a difference in the way the signal hits the board, I mean, if you automate the signal in the DAW, say you lower a track by 6dB, will this affect the way the board will handle the signal, vs feeding it the tracks at unity and automating the mix within the board?

I hope my question is clear.

Thanx

L.G.

Originally posted by gerax:
One question: if we use the analog board as the dynamic processing and summing stage, and automation is done in the DAW, is there a difference in the way the signal hits the board, I mean, if you automate the signal in the DAW, say you lower a track by 6dB, will this affect the way the board will handle the signal, vs feeding it the tracks at unity and automating the mix within the board?

It's "BEST" to automate with the baord. But sometimes more expediant to do it in the DAW. Vocal rides for expample. You could do the major sectional changes on the board, and thew real fine sylable tweaks in the daw.

RM

That was exactly what I was thinking.

Ever tried such devices like the Dangerous Music 2-Bus, summing stage mixer? I read that lots of people pair it with their PT systems, feed them 8 Master Fader tracks (like an analog 8 bus board) and swear by them, claiming that the result is far more superior.

L.G.

I never used Pt automation except for plugin parameters. I mix PT rig sessions from 02R V2. 32 discrete outs from 2 adat bridges. Hey, it is a digital board! What the hell am i posting here?lol
:s:

Originally posted by gerax:
RM

That was exactly what I was thinking.

Ever tried such devices like the Dangerous Music 2-Bus, summing stage mixer? I read that lots of people pair it with their PT systems, feed them 8 Master Fader tracks (like an analog 8 bus board) and swear by them, claiming that the result is far more superior.

L.G.

Yeah "Jules" uses one of those. Sounds like a great concept.

How much did the Midas run you?

T

Originally posted by Clueless:
I have a fairly advanced MOTU setup that I been working with since last year, and it's been frustrating to feel so close, yet so far, from mixes that sparkle. After much lurking, theorizing, and some experimentation (which was helpful in confirming what wasn't working), I sprang for a midas venice console and WOW! What a difference!

With the Venice, I can find and tweak EQ settings that are just too elusive via the mouse. Plus, the EQ sounds so much better (compared with MOTU's EQ; n.b. I haven't tried the Cambridge plugin for my UAD-1 yet).

Now, I'm not a trained mixing engineer, and perhaps in a year or so I will learn so much about EQ from the board that I'll be able to dial in the perfect amounts from my DAW. But until then I just have to say that having a real board, with real knobs, and really good sounding EQ, is definitely going to take me places that I couldn't get to with my mouse.

But here's the bottom line: routing from MOTU -> Midas -> MOTU is giving me better sound than I could ever get just staying in the digital domain. Go figure!

I bought a brand new 240 for $3000 from Richard at http://www.soundbroker.com. I've seen some lower prices on ebay, but I decided to go with new for this item because I wanted 100% confidence. I should also add that many people recommended a Soundcraft Ghost to me, but the Ghost is just too damn large. The venice 240 is just the right size for my environment. And you cannot beat the color scheme!

Wow! What a deal! You're not that clueless after all.