Are the tracks recorded in stereo or mono?

What interface do you have?

What mixer do you have?

What is the routing from your interface to the mixer?

What output is driving the monitors?

They're recorded in stereo, but went sent out to a single outboard track - it's a one sided signal.
I have an M-AUDIO Fast Track Ultra 8r which has 8 ins x 8 outs.
The thing is, I haven't purchased a mixer yet, but will get one with dedicated outs for each channel.
I'm aware i'm gonna route it via outputs on the Fast Track Ultra 8r to outboard mixer input via 1/4" line-in.
(so all outputs from 1-8 to mixer channel 1,2,3,etc.)
I haven't hooked up monitors to the mixer, I was monitoring with headphones on the FTU8r.

You can send four stereo signals out of an 8-channel interface. Each stereo track will require two channels of your interface and two mono channels of a mixer (or one stereo channel of a mixer). The left sides of the stereo tracks will come out odd channels of the interface, and rights will come out the even ones.

I really have to wonder why you would record all your tracks in stereo. Most sources are fine recorded in mono and panned to some part of the stereo field in mixdown.

What's the difference between panning in stereo and panning in mono?
Anyways, i'm still lost. I've tried grouping the outputs 'stereo 1+2', 'stereo 3+4', etc. but I don't only wanna mix 4 tracks.
Do you understand what i'm trying to do? I wanna mix out of the box, without having to deal with any one sided signals....
How do I do this? How can I route track 1 in DAW to channel 1's mixer and have it in stereo using Cubase?

Panning in stereo and mono? Stereo is already panned left and right...that's why it's "stereo". Mono can move left, right, center, or anywhere in between, but not in two places at once. It's "mono". A mono signal panned center will be equally heard in the left and right channels. A stereo signal generally has instruments that benefit from a stereo effect...like chorus, or maybe more dry left, mostly reverb right (and you can create that by doubling the track and effecting the doubled track, and panning it opposite).

To have each track in stereo, they have to be recorded as stereo tracks, and you should have a need to record them as stereo. Everything doesn't need to be recorded in stereo. You don't need a kick drum, or a bass guitar, or usually a lead vocal, in stereo...unless you're going for some effect.

If they are already recorded in mono, then you can't make them "stereo". You could copy a track and route each track left and right, but all you'll have is two mono tracks spread out, which will only achieve about the same thing as panning one mono track, anyway.

You could copy a track and put effects on one (or both), and then spread them left and right to create some kind of stereo.

What do you have that you want to record in stereo? What can be recorded in mono?

You're STILL only going to get 8 tracks out of that box. It'll be either 8 mono tracks, 4 stereo tracks, or some combination...like 3 stereo and 2 mono, or 6 mono and one stereo. Each output can only handle one mono track, or one side of a stereo track.

If you have, say track 1 as a mono guitar, you'll assign it to track 1 output. Its pan position will appear to be as left out of the box, but it doesn't matter to the mixer. It's going into, say, channel 1, of the mixer. Then, you can pan it anywhere you want on that mixer channel...left, right, center...or anywhere in between. But you can't pan 1 track to two sides.

If you have, say, a stereo keyboard on track 1, it'll come out of the box on output 1 (left) and output 2 (right). You'll route those two outputs to either two mono channel inputs on the mixer (channels 1 & 2 ,etc.), and pan them left and right, or you'll plug them into the two 1/4" left(mono)/right jacks if the mixer has stereo channels. A stereo channel on a mixer will pan left and right evenly, with its pan (or 'balance') pot at center, (given that the source is input evenly in volume).

You have only a few choices of total output tracks through eight outputs.

8 mono tracks.
1 stereo track, 6 mono tracks.
2 stereo tracks, 4 mono tracks.
3 stereo tracks, 2 mono tracks.
4 stereo tracks.

Remember, the mono channels of a mixer don't care one bit about a signal coming out of the left, right, center...top or bottom...anything...of another source. It's taking one signal, and you pan it wherever you want.

A stereo mixer channel kind of does...but not definitely. You can run two completely different things to each of a stereo channel's two (left/right) inputs. The reason it isn't often done is that the two instruments will share the exact same EQ, effects...anything you do to that channel...at least one of them is likely to suffer. And, those separate instruments will still only be as "mono" from the left and right, respective, with neither being able to cross to the middle or the other side....using the pan (or 'balance') pot on a stereo channel of a mixer will only lower the volume of the signal you move away from.

I'm wondering if you realize what it is that you are trying to achieve, anyway? Do you have a legitimate purpose and understanding of why you want to take a (supposedly) pristine recorded track out of the DAW, and run it through more noise and confusion? Did you read something about "mixing out of the box", and buy into some kind of hype, without realizing why someone does any of that?

Is it just that you want to mix "hands on"? You can pretty much do that by just buying a control surface, instead of an audio mixer, to feel like a "real engineer" by moving faders and knobs to control the tracks in the software. You can probably automate a lot (or most...or all) your mixing decisions in the software.

If you've recorded your tracks properly, then why would you want to (probably) degrade them by running them through more stuff? If it's outboard effects you want, you don't need a mixer for that. Just run the track(s) through an outboard effect and back in.

What are you trying to accomplish by making things more difficult (and expensive) than they need to be? I'm thinking we need to get the story behind all this before any real progress can be made.

Kapt.Krunch

For my style of mixing, it'll just be WAY more fluent in the process. Using plugins that simulate really nothing doesn't cut it for me.
I've mixed on a Soundcraft GB4 once and I can GUARANTEE you'd never get that sort of circuitry equalization simulation, not even on Waves.
This is one of the main reasons why I wanna mix out of the box. For example, i'd EQ vocals totally different in DAW than I would outside the box.
In other words, you approach things differently outboard instead of the typical 'brainwashing' technique using digital audio tools. I do, anyway.

So as you were saying, I can send out each track as a mono to the mixer and be able to pan it? That, I didn't know and perhaps was the reason for all
my confusion! If I am able to do it that way, then that's perfect. BUT what about if I wanna use the headphones on the Fast Track Ultra 8r?
It still has ; for example, the guitar hard left, vocals hard right, bass hard left, etc. Should I just not monitor this way simply because i'll be using the mixer as it's main sound source?

Another concern, where do I hook up the monitors on the mixer? I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the main stereo outs going into the monitors?

Anyway, thanks for your help Kapt.Krunch, I really appreciate it.

How can you possibly have gotten enough experience to have such strong opinions about mixing without learning how to pan?

Anyway, if you want to monitor the mix you need to put the monitors/headphones in the signal path of the mix. Right now you have no mix so that's impossible. There are several possibilities, the most likely of which is the control room output of the mixer.

Where in this thread does it say I don't know how to pan? I sense a little defense for the digital world.
I have no mix? My mix is on the mixer, going back into my DAW. And you could've just answered my question and say...
"yes, they go from stereo outs (control room outs) to your monitors" - but I guess sounding highly intelligent is a big fad here.

My problem was I was totally oblivious to the fact that you CAN indeed pan the sent mono signal from DAW to the mixer ON the mixer.
It's not that I had no idea how to pan, are you kidding me lol.

So, say I when i'm mixing out of the box, what if I wanna connect an analog delay, for example, to track 1?
Being that the inputs and outputs for each channel would all be in use because of the routings. What do I do?

LOL-there is no defensiveness from the digital world. Boulder, the Kaptain and myself all use analog gear equally as much and as well as digital gear. What you sense is our suspicion that you don't understand what you're trying to do. Also if you think mixing OTB (out of the box) inherently is going to change anything then you will be sorely disappointed. You say you mixed once on a particular Soundcraft board. That doesn't cut it for experience.

Your monitoring setup is what is most likely the culprit in your feeling of inadequate mixes. That and the fact the analog circuitry and digital clock in the Fast Track are substandard. What this last bit means that if you were to send signal out of the FT and back in to the FT the DA/AD conversion would likely add artifacts or noise that are not desirable. People that mix OTB normally are all analog until the very last main outs mixdown; or have much higher end digital interfaces for AD/DA conversion and moderately high end to ultra high end analog gear (read quiet-no noise added) for the analog summing/FX/etc. Panning has no advantage analog versus digital.

mistercrayle, post: 369625 wrote: So, say I when i'm mixing out of the box, what if I wanna connect an analog delay, for example, to track 1?
Being that the inputs and outputs for each channel would all be in use because of the routings. What do I do?

Well, my smartass answer would be: Same way you usually connect a delay to a mixing board.

But I'll be nice. You connect a post-fader aux send to the input of the delay and connect the output to an aux input or a channel if available. Set the mix to 100% effect (wet).

I've just found out that it was the DSP for the Fast Track Ultra 8r that was causing sound to emmit from only one speaker.
And no, there were no noise when going analog back to digital. I've done an A/B comparison and to me, there's a big difference.
I mix alot of reggae/dub music, which requires alot of pressing buttons for delay effects, lots of EQ changes during the song, muting, soloing.
That stuff just doesn't cut it using a mouse. Now you guys should have a more clear perspective of why I wanna mix out the box.
Can you answer my question about hooking up an outboard effect (reverb/delay) to mixer since all ins & outs are in use? Thanks for you help guys.

No noise that you're aware of. And there is nothing you have described that isn't very easy to do ITB-especially if you have a control surface. Jah Know!

But I digress.

If you are adding outboard gear with a Fast Track, then you have to add it inline. Boulder already described how on the mixer itself via an insert or aux send and return. The other way to do this is much less flexible and that is to run the output of the Fast Track into your FX box and then into the mixer input. These are basic beginers routing sequences.

I went through a phase of being the go-to guy for live reggae bands in my area, so I have a pretty good idea of what dubbin' out is, mon. Rewind!

JAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! hahahaha
So, how the hell do the big dogs connect tons of gear like compressors, reverbs, eq's, etc. to a mixer, and the whole patchbay thing?
Think you guys could tell me??????????? I have a joint waiting for you guys........

You don't absolutely need a patchbay, but it helps by bringing some of your inputs and outputs to the front of the rack where you can get at them. You need to read up on normaling (normaled, half-normaled etc.).

Effects to be shared, like reverbs and delays, are connected as I described above. It's probably not necessary to put these on the patchbay as the routing on the board will suffice. Returning the effect to a channel is the best option, so get a mixer with plenty of extra channels. Returning to an aux return/aux input is okay, but not as nice as using a channel.

For your application compressors go on inserts. Most likely the inserts on your board will be on 1/4" TRS jacks, but they are neither stereo or balanced, they are send/return. Use a special insert cables that split the TRS to two TS, one for send and one for return. A patchbay will let you insert your compressors on whatever channels need them without going around to the back of the mixer to re-patch.

I still think its pretty crazy to do it the old way. To compete with ITB sound with an OTB mix setup is expensive, and you give away a bunch of versatility.

And the big dogs aren't limited to eight channels. Don't worry, you'll get there. Keep saving those pennies and don't throw them away on too many big blunts and soon you could have a 16 channel firewire mixer/interface to do things like you really want.

This is an excellent guide for beginners and mixers. While it is published by/for Mackie the information on routing is general enough to be quite useful to you.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.mackie.c…"]Mackie - Compact Mixer Reference Guide[/]="http://www.mackie.c…"]Mackie - Compact Mixer Reference Guide[/]

You should also look at finding a library copy or a used Amazon.com copy of Gary Davis "Sound Reinforcement Handbook" also known as the Yamaha Guide. It is sort of the unofficial bible of live sound basics and is well worth the cash. Or spliffs.

Why are all the outputs on ur mixer being used. I get sending 8 ch from the interface into the mixer but why use six sends to send all 8 tracks back to the daw? U should be summing to 2 tracks with the mixer. All ur aux outs should be available. Are there aux returns on the mixer? If ur tracking through the mixer then u should b eating up auxes or direct outs but for mixing use ur auxes for auxes.

I'm not using aux outs. Not yet, anyway.
I'm using each out for each channel and routing them back in my DAW, recording it as I mix/dub stuff out on the mixer.

Say I have a 16 channel mixer, how do I connect 5 or 6 outboard gear?

mistercrayle, post: 369737 wrote: I'm not using aux outs. Not yet, anyway.
I'm using each out for each channel and routing them back in my DAW, recording it as I mix/dub stuff out on the mixer.

And then you'll have all those tracks back in the computer. To be mixed. Again. What then? Mix in the box? Because you're not using the mixer as a mixer, if you're feeding something though a channel, and then out its direct outs. Or, if you are running from the computer, each track through a channel insert...you're already using the channel insert. Then, you're stuck with putting something in series with each channel, or using an auxiliary bus. There's a difference in how things react using one or the other. You're using it as an expensive patchbay, or possibly a multichannel preamp, with possibly channel EQ (depending on whether direct outs are pre or post EQ). See..they are still going to end up unmixed multichannel audio when it all gets back to the computer.

Just wondering.

mistercrayle, post: 369737 wrote: Say I have a 16 channel mixer, how do I connect 5 or 6 outboard gear?

We don't know. You've indicated earlier that you have no mixer yet. Without knowing what mixer it is, there is no way to know how to route anything. We don't know what outboard gear you have. Same thing. Some things may get run through an auxiliary that can be common to any or all channels. Some things you may want to restrict to one channel's inserts. We don't know if you'll buy a mixer with minimal routing capabilities, or what. These are basic concepts that aren't at all hard to understand with any knowledge of a mixer's operation, and a little bit of initiative to search for already published free information that is widely available on the internet.

Look for "channel inserts" and "direct outs" (many mixers utilize the same jack for either function), "auxiliary inserts", "mixer effects routing"...stuff like that. Read up about running effects serial vs. parallel, and which ones may benefit more from one or the other. Read reviews about the effects you have (AND their manuals), and decide if it's really worth it to run something through this or that. Just because you have it, doesn't mean you have to use it. Especially when even run-of-the-mill software effects may blow the doors off cheezy inexpensive outboard ones (unless you're really going for the lo-fi grunge noise...which, incidentally, can also be done with software).

It sounds like you may actually make use of some kind of outboard control/effects for what you want to do, but you may also be making things much more difficult...and possibly much more expensive...than if you slowed down a bit, and thought all this through with some more good info.

One other thing...about noise. ALL external devices will add noise. It's unavoidable. Any time a signal passes through electronics, it is susceptible to thermal (and other) self-noise from the device itself, and possibly noise from other sources. Connectors and cables present opportunities for more noise from other sources to be picked up and added to the signal. Better quality devices and equipment will minimize the problem much more than cheap stuff. Every track you send out of the computer, through a mixer and possibly other stuff, WILL add noise. The more tracks you do that with, the more noise will accumulate when all the tracks are finally being mixed.

Just because you CAN run something through a bunch of stuff...just because you have a bunch of stuff...it doesn't mean you should. You'd do well to record it into the computer properly in the first place, do what you can in the computer as far as mixing and effects, and leave the "I'm acting like a big-time recording engineer because I have my Behringer 16 channel mixer and am using ALL my pawn shop effects" to the amateurs...at least if you want to make anything anyone wants to listen to.

Just sayin'....

Kapt.Krunch

I am recording to my computer as the first stage. Second stage, send them out to the mixer dry, mix there but not to a point where I want it to sound that way on the final mix. For example, I have a delay and phaser which is connected to the mixer, connected to all tracks. While the song is playing, certain parts require delays, mutes, solos, EQ changes, etc. on MULTIPLE tracks SIMUTANEOUSLY. Something that would be slightly complex, and most of all ridiculous to multi-task using a mouse.
Third stage, bring the tracks on the mixer back to the DAW. While recording - I do my automation changes, mutes, solos, delays, etc. so they are recorded into the DAW with all the alterations made on the mixer. In other words, i'm practically using the mixer mainly as a control surface, but not fully. ANOTHER example for more clearer understanding, in a DAW - you'd pretty much have to automate track by track, where out on the mixer, I can get all the stuff I wanna acheive in one crack. You guys'll probably say "no, you can link the channels in the DAW and record the automation on all the linked tracks". But what if I wanna have track 1's high end build increasingly for a certain part, track 2 delay and phaser (both doing different automations), and track 3 muted/solo'd back and forth? Sounds pretty impossible to do in a DAW. The mixer would do that job in one take...........................because I have 3 arms.

Automation is how every pro studio would do it even if they were analog summing the mix. I don't understand your position against automation. Unless your outboard is VERY expensive it isn't going to sound better than plugins. And it will not be repeatable.

This is not about my sound quality here, it's about my workflow. It's much more efficient.
Preferably, i'd just rather do automations manually out of the box rather than using the mouse lol, that's all.

Alright, i've tried this method again at a friends and i've ran into a wall. When the audio from the mixer is sent back to the DAW, I am able to record it as a new audio track but here's the problem ; while recording the new track that I want to dub, i'm unable to mute the original track (the track that is sent to the mixer) - which of course makes sense because without that audio signal going to the mixer in the first place, there'd be no such thing as recording back to the DAW!!!

I wanna be able to hear only the signal that i'm dubbing/mixing and not both the original and the newly recorded one at the same time...
It now seems a little impossible because you can't mute the sent track because if done, recording back into the DAW will not happen because my interface will then be feeding nothing out to the mixer. I'm now beginning to lose interest in this whole setup due to it's complexity and frustration it brings along.

I may be doing this wrong, I really dunno....

To be real specific, track 1 is a guitar - i'm sending it OUT through output 1, which then goes to channel 1's input on the mixer.
Now on the mixer, channel 1 is being sent back OUT to input 1 on my interface. In Cubase, i've created a new audio track and set it's input to "analog insert 1". So, say if I wanted to record that track back into the DAW with the automations made on the mixer, but I don't wanna hear the original audio (track 1 guitar), how the hell is this possible? I wanna be able to hear exactly what i'm doing to the audio instead of doing so while hearing the original track at the same time. I know there's a way to mix out of the box and have them recorded into the DAW without having the original track and the new track going at the same time......

I'm now thinking i'm just better off with a control surface. Please help guys, thanks.

mistercrayle, post: 369768 wrote: Alright, i've tried this method again at a friends and i've ran into a wall. When the audio from the mixer is sent back to the DAW, I am able to record it as a new audio track but here's the problem ; while recording the new track that I want to dub, i'm unable to mute the original track (the track that is sent to the mixer) - which of course makes sense because without that audio signal going to the mixer in the first place, there'd be no such thing as recording back to the DAW!!!

If we are going to help we'll need more info. What device and output are your monitors connected to? But read my whole reply first as you may want to skip the OTB idea.

mistercrayle, post: 369768 wrote: I wanna be able to hear only the signal that i'm dubbing/mixing and not both the original and the newly recorded one at the same time...
It now seems a little impossible because you can't mute the sent track because if done, recording back into the DAW will not happen because my interface will then be feeding nothing out to the mixer. I'm now beginning to lose interest in this whole setup due to it's complexity and frustration it brings along.

I may be doing this wrong, I really dunno....

I think your whole concept about how to do this is wrong. You simply don't need to record a new copy of the track with effects added. There are several better ways to do this, but figuring out which to suggest is difficult because you don't seem to have the knowledge base to understand the advantages and disadvantages.

Do you have a crystal clear understanding of parallel and series effect routing? If not you won't understand the language I would have to use to explain the different options.

mistercrayle, post: 369768 wrote: To be real specific, track 1 is a guitar - i'm sending it OUT through output 1, which then goes to channel 1's input on the mixer.
Now on the mixer, channel 1 is being sent back OUT to input 1 on my interface. In Cubase, i've created a new audio track and set it's input to "analog insert 1". So, say if I wanted to record that track back into the DAW with the automations made on the mixer, but I don't wanna hear the original audio (track 1 guitar), how the hell is this possible? I wanna be able to hear exactly what i'm doing to the audio instead of doing so while hearing the original track at the same time. I know there's a way to mix out of the box and have them recorded into the DAW without having the original track and the new track going at the same time......

I'm now thinking i'm just better off with a control surface. Please help guys, thanks.

I think you are better off with a control surface, but don't expect that to be plug and play. You still have a learning curve to get through to use it effectively.

Looping a track out of the DAW, through an effect and back into the DAW has nothing to do with automation. It's automation when you tell the computer that you want to make a change of some sort at some point on the timeline, and it remembers to do it every time. For example, you can have an effect switch on at some point and off at a later point and the DAW will apply those changes every time the song is played. But the track source file isn't altered and there is no new audio recorded. You can change the instructions to switch on the effect earlier or later or just delete the automated move entirely.

If you have a controller you can set it up to control effects sends in the DAW. You tell the DAW that you want the controller to control a bank of post-fader sends, and you tell it to record your moves. Then as you play the song you can use the controller in realtime to trigger effects from the tracks. You turn up the send on a guitar track and you get echoes, and so on. You don't need to re-record any audio because the DAW remembers your moves and applies them every time you play the song. So every time you get to that part where you triggered the echoes with the controller the DAW now does it for you. You can edit the automation of delete it entirely if you wish, with absolutely no change in the original audio file. You can leave it be and move on to another automation job and come back to it a month later with the option of re-editing or deleting it and your source audio never changes, only the processing you apply changes and only when and how you want it to.

And that is why you can mix with a mouse. A controller is just a different way of inputting the automation data. Since you can save your fader moves in automation you don't need three hands. You perform one operation and save it, then perform a second operation and save that, and so on until you have placed and perfected all the automated fader moves, aux send changes, effect parameter changes etc. you want in the project. A controller may help psychologically but is not technically necessary for doing what you are trying to do. Read the Cubase manual and learn about how it handles automation and try it out with a mouse before committing to a Rube Goldberg OTB arrangement or sinking cash into a controller.

Dude, all of what you've just told me - I already knew. I don't think you're reading my earlier posts because ITB automation is definetely not my problem.
I don't think you get what i'm trying to do, seems all you're doing is assuming i'm some little kid who's just starting off and want some high-tech gear perhaps.
Maybe I am doing it wrong, but recording a new track is the only way to get the original signal out back to the DAW if I want to do automations on the mixer.
I've done it. It's just that the original track is being played at the same time and that is my problem, it has nothing to do with automations in Cubase.
For example, say I have a guitar with an EQ built in it, while recording - I constantly mess with the EQ. So it's sort of like a manual OTB automation that is being altered while recording. It's manual OTB automations i'm trying to achieve, and creating new tracks for each is the only way I can get them to be recorded with the automations made on the mixer. Think about it, that's the whole point in sending the tracks out the mixer back to the DAW, if you're not creating new tracks to be recorded from the mixer to the DAW, what's point in sending back to the DAW in the first place?

mistercrayle, post: 369809 wrote: Dude, all of what you've just told me - I already knew. I don't think you're reading my earlier posts because ITB automation is definetely not my problem.
I don't think you get what i'm trying to do, seems all you're doing is assuming i'm some little kid who's just starting off and want some high-tech gear perhaps.

Dude, I'm not assuming anything, I'm responding to what appears to be your level of knowledge. For example:

mistercrayle, post: 369809 wrote: Maybe I am doing it wrong, but recording a new track is the only way to get the original signal out back to the DAW if I want to do automations on the mixer.
I've done it. It's just that the original track is being played at the same time and that is my problem, it has nothing to do with automations in Cubase.
For example, say I have a guitar with an EQ built in it, while recording - I constantly mess with the EQ. So it's sort of like a manual OTB automation that is being altered while recording. It's manual OTB automations i'm trying to achieve, and creating new tracks for each is the only way I can get them to be recorded with the automations made on the mixer. Think about it, that's the whole point in sending the tracks out the mixer back to the DAW, if you're not creating new tracks to be recorded from the mixer to the DAW, what's point in sending back to the DAW in the first place?

Making changes while you record a track or with outboard gear in realtime on a existing track is not automation. It's hard to communicate when the words we are using have different meanings for each of us. What you are doing is pretty unusual so there's already less common ground for understanding each other, and with something this complex there's little room for error. Probably an accurate chart or drawing of some kind would clear up some misunderstanding.

Yes if you want to make eq adjustments to a track in analog you have to send it out to the eq-ing device and re-record it back into the DAW.

If you are monitoring from the interface then there may be a conflict between the monitoring and the sends to the board. Many interfaces use the first two channels as the main stereo outputs. If you absolutely must have eight individual track sends from the DAW and a stereo monitor output at the same time you will need an interface with at least ten outputs. It may simply be that you can't do what you want with the hardware you have.

You're obviously not getting my problem. Doing adjustments on the mixer and having them recorded into Cubase is automation. Same as what you would usually do in the box but i'm doing it on the mixer for more control and versatility. My problem is I can't record the new track without having the original track silenced, that's all. What is the sole purpose of sending back audio to your DAW from an outboard mixer?

the purpose of sending back into the daw is so that your final stereo mix is included in your session.

mistercrayle, post: 370076 wrote: Doing adjustments on the mixer and having them recorded into Cubase is automation. Same as what you would usually do in the box but i'm doing it on the mixer for more control and versatility.

No, it's not "automation". "Automation" is the software encoding of instructions that you have sent to it via mouse moves/external controller/data entry/etc., to force the software to repeat those moves every time the file is played. "Automation" can usually be undone, allowing for "more control and versatility", unlike printing external mixer/effects to new tracks, which can't be undone...only left that way, or mangled further. Or, dumping the new tracks, and starting over with the original pre-mangled tracks...if you have saved them.

ONLY a mixer with software control capabilities can do "automation". No mixer that is not capable of computer-to-mixer data communication can be "automated".

Control surfaces without the analog mixing components, but which allow a mixer-like physical control of your software can often be "automated".

You don't NEED a mixer to run external effects. You can run computer interface out to effects in, effects out to computer interface in, and record a new track. You can try to be really cool, and think you're going to control many tracks at once with real-time fader, pan, effects and EQ moves all at once...but real engineers breathed a sigh of relief when they were presented with the less-confusing and much easier to accomplish options of "automation".

Of COURSE you can't record a track through an analog mixer without sending it out of the computer, and back in. That's how signals travel! How else would it make it out, and get back in?

I just think nobody here understands why you are trying to insist on doing things the hard way, with destructive...instead of mostly non-destructive...methods, that will add noise, and likely end up sounding like a worse "mixing job" by trying to be Octo-Engineer, than if you'd learn how to use your software, and do the minimal OTB stuff necessary?

By the way, "manual automations" is an oxymoron. "Manual manipulations" will never, ever, EVER be precisely duplicated, like "automation" will. There is nothing inherently wrong with part of your idea and desire to manipulate some things OTB. You just seem to have a large misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about how, why, when and what to do it to, a dismal lack of routing and equipment knowledge, and a stubborn insistence that everyone else doesn't understand and all of us are wrong...as well as steadfast refusal to consider good advice from people who are kind enough to answer questions and try to lead you out of your confusion.

Just remember to save EVERY SINGLE CHANGE you make as an entirely new file that you replace tracks on, so you can waste time digging back through your earlier large files eating up massive space on your drive, when you undoubtedly need to go back. Or, you could keep adding tracks, and disabling the unneeded ones...but then you'll have to wade through a confusing screenful of unused tracks to find the used ones. It also makes the file much larger. Or, you could use the easier, faster and less disk-eating process of using "automation" that can be easily added, deleted or changed from that same file for most of it..

Kapt.Krunch

Use the aux send on your to-be-mangled track and route it through your fx box andback in a new channel. Leave the fader on the original channel at the bottom.

We all understand what you are saying. And you're wrong on all of your non logical points. You are making this much harder than it needs to be and with the equipment you have you can't do it properly to begin with.

Thanks guys but you guys sound like a bunch of nerds. I thought this was a recording forum, not an english class.
I don't understand how you guys can assume that this method of mixing is "useless" when you guys aren't doing what i'm doing.
I'd post video's of producers doing exactly what i'm talking about but proving you guys wrong ain't my style.
All I wanted to do was to do manual automations on an outboard mixer and have them recorded into my DAW while doing so.
You folks could've simply said "that's not possible" but I got a whole essay on all this useless technical information that is completely pointless!!
Thanks though.

If you already know everything...why did you ask?

You've clearly been a victim of professional assistance. i'm deeply sorry, I think none of us realized who you think you are and have treated you with great disrespect. just disregard everything we've said and carry on with your manual automations.
And its probably best to keep those videos of the real pro's doing what your talking about to yourself, god knows if you couldnt figure out how they were doing it then we obviously wouldn't have a clue.

Hack, post: 370141 wrote: You've clearly been a victim of professional assistance. i'm deeply sorry, I think none of us realized who you think you are and have treated you with great disrespect. just disregard everything we've said and carry on with your manual automations.
And its probably best to keep those videos of the real pro's doing what your talking about to yourself, god knows if you couldnt figure out how they were doing it then we obviously wouldn't have a clue.

"professional" assistance!?! LMFAO

"I mix alot of reggae/dub music, which requires alot of pressing buttons for delay effects, lots of EQ changes during the song, muting, soloing."

Muting, soloing. Extremely easy and accurate to do in the software. Extremely easy to "undo", if you decide differently. Extremely easy when you have your tune ready to mix down to get rid of of the extraneous data (just make sure the original is backed up). If the part is muted...what's the point of having it hog space and resources?

Extremely easy to automate in software, or run track(s) out, manipulate them, and run them back in. You can make them 100% wet, record them to separate track and bring them in and out with software automation. Or, you could run them wet/dry, record them back in, and eventually nuke the extraneous original (that has been backed up).

So far, you don't even need a mixer.

EQ changes. OK. A small mixer to impart its own sonic character and extra noise will do. Or, maybe just a stereo preamp with EQ? Anyway, run signal through, grunge it up, record it back in. you could do it 100% wet, and let it ride along with original, or record it wet/dry mix, and eventually nuke the unneeded original (after it's backed up).

Trying to do it manually ALL at once...especially muting and soloing...WHILE trying to manipulate delays and EQ changes is not going to be easy. Sure, they USED to that, when the engineer, producer and several band members grabbed controls with both hands and started twiddling...but they had no choice. They didn't have "automation", and were glad when they did...to minimize confusion and make their mixes easier and better.

Do what you want. I don't care. I was just trying to help you realize some of the technicalities since you've admitted you were lost, and you've become hostile.

Kapt.Krunch

Not so much hostile, just a bit amazed at how you people react and the unneeded grammar being used.
What if I was a 12 year old kid, do you think a 12 year old kid would understand all those kinda words? Highly doubt it.
Anyway, i'm not trying to make this into a war because I appreciate folks like you that over time, developed all this knowledge and of course, I too, would want a little respect for it so that may be the reason for the tension. I already knew how to route tracks to and back out of mixer into the DAW, I just had a lot of confusion when I suddenly ran into problems like being unable to dub the track without hearing the original. After a lot of rationalizing, I realized that is probably impossible because like i've stated, without the original track going into the mixer in the first place, there'd be no signal at all. Which came to my decision that this method is not for me, but i've seen video's of guys doing exactly what i've been trying to do! Then the frustration came.

Anyway, I know this method is also probably old-school and nowadays, software automations are more popular and most used. Although, being a musician, I feel creativity is a huge part in a song making process, or perhaps even mixing. That's why I like the whole mixing/dubbing out of the box idea because I truly feel that you will perform things out of the box with a more creative approach instead of doing it in the software, which usually is done one track at a time. For me, doing one track at a time in a DAW takes you away from the creativity because you're solely focused on that one track and you tend to forget what you're even doing sometimes. And the feel as well, sometimes you already have an idea thought of and you go about doing it in a DAW, you do so - and the feel just doesn't fit. Doing automations all at once (on a mixer) - to me, can produce way different results than when you're doing it in the box, mainly because of the intention, and in the end feels right because it was all done right on the spot and it felt right to do it, which makes the feel real.

Though, I agree 100% that software automations may be more convenient due to being able to undo, edit, etc - where on the other hand, on a mixer - you'd have to re-record if you've messed up or have done something wrong.

I hope you guys know what I mean.....

If you insist on calling manual adjustments "automation" nobody's going to waste their time with you, not because anyone hates you but because nobody's quite sure what you're talking about and you don't show much interest in making it any easier. Once you are told by those who know what the word means you should have some respect and use it the way everyone else does.

Whatever. Against my better judgment I'll give you one last suggestion. The most likely solution to your problem, without buying different equipment, is in the monitoring function of your interface and/or the routing of your DAW.

Just hopping in and literally spent 5 seconds looking at this. Not going to spend any longer on this because, haha, I don't even own a tube amp.

bouldersound, post: 370246 wrote: If you insist on calling manual adjustments "automation" nobody's going to waste their time with you, not because anyone hates you but because nobody's quite sure what you're talking about and you don't show much interest in making it any easier. Once you are told by those who know what the word means you should have some respect and use it the way everyone else does.

Whatever. Against my better judgment I'll give you one last suggestion. The most likely solution to your problem, without buying different equipment, is in the monitoring function of your interface and/or the routing of your DAW.

Buddy, from the very beginning of this thread - you were no help at all so you should just save it and mind your own.