I record clean because I like the option to make changes.

That being said, I also love analog gear going in. Nothing better.
Personally, I think once you figure out what something is made up of, it can be created ITB.

I think a computer is way too much for most people's good today. A lot of us who don't need all the editing and plugins would be better off getting a console you can afford and use a DAW to capture, refrain from using plugins to screw it all up, keep it simple. The character would come from the performance and a nice unscathed bass to help it warm up more naturally.

audiokid, post: 426529, member: 1 wrote: Personally, I think once you figure out what something is made up of, it can be created ITB

I think we can all agree with sufficient practice and knowledge this is true. Let me say how this effects me personally. Example, (sounds at time of recording) if I play my guitar and sing I get a better vibe than if I record playing, then sing. Problem is, I record guitar clean, then record vocal clean, not as easy to gel. I naturally control my overall performance sound/volume with what I am performing.

I am performing a synth part (per your analog example) I used to use, in my case a foot pedal with my Jupiter 6 live. I am far from technical or extremely knowledgeable about music reading, harmonies inversions etc. What I do have is a feel for things, based on the sound I choose, even if I don't translate that very well still in recordings a lot of times. I get a vibe and a structure from sounds, how they sound right now as I am playing. When all major recordings were done in big studios with self environments at tracking time and only a mic on something as it sounded... well ?.

Makzimia, post: 426530, member: 48344 wrote: I am performing a synth part (per your analog example) I used to use, in my case a foot pedal with my Jupiter 6 live. I am far from technical or extremely knowledgeable about music reading, harmonies inversions etc. What I do have is a feel for things, based on the sound I choose, even if I don't translate that very well still in recordings a lot of times. I get a vibe and a structure from sounds, how they sound right now as I am playing. When all major recordings were done in big studios with self environments at tracking time and only a mic on something as it sounded... well ?.

I have a theory on this which includes VSTi.

You need a really good preamp to compete with the size of synths, good samples and VSTi.

audiokid, post: 426531, member: 1 wrote: I have a theory on this which includes VSTi

Ok, and I have version of Native Instruments Komplete 9 ultimate among my arsenal. So, your personal view is, throw away our old synths unless we have a killer preamp, plug in a good controller into midi and just use the midi sample stuff. I can see that part of it.

no, you need a really good preamp for vocals, guitar to compete with synths, VSTi and top quality libraries that were mastered in some of the best studios of the world. Think about it, We use samples that are world class and then track with lower level gear than that samples or VSTi.

It would be no different than singing to Mastered mix. Its going to sound really different.

audiokid, post: 426533, member: 1 wrote: We use samples that are world class and then track with lower level gear than that samples or VSTi.

Right, so, the real job then becomes to make it all work together somehow, particularly if you don't have that budget. And, here's the important part now, simplify and learn to use less to do more with what you learn, yes?.

This is just my theory:

The idea is to eliminate or reduce to the smallest rather than trying take a small track and expand it into into something it will never be. Its easier to reduce than it is to expand. I'm not saying it isn't possible but this is also why compression is used and doesn't really work more often. This is why mass is over compressing everything to try and get their mix to sound big, especially with sampled drums, VSTi. So, if you are using a low end pre amp and mic ( poor or very obviously different acoustics than the samples.... , your vocals will always sound wimpy and unglued.
This is why I saved up and bought a killer preamp and use big rails for summing. My preamp will compete with the best samples in the world.

But, if you don't have that, and you are using samples and VSTi, get the vocals best without savage curves and then fit the VSTi in the space of the weakest , that way you are always able to make the main part of the mix stand out where it belongs (more balanced).

As an example. If we don't hear an example of another comparison, and a song is good, thats all that matters. Its not until we create a way to hear comparisons, can or do we hear difference. Just like MP3. Once you are able to fit the main part of a song into the common space, everything else lives in the mix with a balanced more glued sound.

As you get to know more about this, and have an open mind... sound designing and sound replacement gets fun when you know what you have to do to open a mix up.

audiokid, post: 426536, member: 1 wrote: As an example. If we don't hear an example of another comparison, and a song is good, thats all that matters. Its not until we create a way to hear comparisons, can or do we hear difference.

I think that pretty much stands to reason with a lot of things. My 2013 Hyundai Accent looks a lot nicer than my neighbor's 2002 Corolla... but not nearly as nice as the guy 3 houses down, who owns a 2015 Beemer. ;) LOL

I think that - just as music has different styles - so does mixing. There will always be engineers who are better at certain styles of music than others, and I think it's probably due to the fact that they enjoy mixing in the styles that they do; and anytime you enjoy doing what you do, I think it only stands to reason that you'll be better at that, at least more than a style that you don't care as much for.

There are a few people - but I think it's rare and a general exception to the rule - who seem to be fantastic regardless of the styles in which they are working, those who seem to be able to do anything - from classical/orchestral to jazz to alternative to blues to hip hop to metal to country - but I'm certainly not one of those people.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion ( my own personal conclusion) that it's the performances - meaning the quality of the playing or singing - that really matter the most - at least to me, anyway.

Performance quality is certainly more important (to me) than me trying to make my mixes compete with those that are currently hot, modern, or trendy, which I don't really have a handle on anyway, and to be honest, don't really want to, either.

I'd rather focus on my playing and singing ability, and do the best job that I can while tracking, than to focus on attempting to get the "ultimate" mix, which, I must admit I've been guilty of doing for quite a few years now. It can be a bit like chasing the dragon's tail... the never ending quest for the ultimate, perfect mix. I've come close at times, but have never really completely taken hold of that tail.
There's not one mix in my entire history of doing this, that I think can't be improved, where I don't say to myself "Man, I really should have ______" .

Somewhere in those years, I seemed to have forgotten about the musicianship, the art and craft of playing, writing and arranging. I'd like to get that back. I believe I'm competent enough as an engineer to get a solid final mix that's good enough to support a well-written song, where the parts have been performed well. But, the mix alone can't do that, if the song and/or tracks suck. LOL

If I can get great performances, and a solid, competent final mix, I'd rather do that - than to get a fantastic, perfect tonally -balanced mix of mediocre performances. ;)

IMHO of course.

d.

As an example. If we don't hear an example of another comparison, and a song is good, thats all that matters. Its not until we create a way to hear comparisons, can or do we hear difference.

This apply's to anyone using samples, keyboards, DI, VSTi.

What I mean by this statement is, "difference" of real vs sample/vsti within the audio track itself it too obvious, yet do we realize its the reason.

Quality difference between a sample recorded really well and a vocal track in the same song is the problem. My way to deal with this is to degrade the sample or DI.
The difference between sample and our lower quality preamp is usually too noticeable . This stands out like a sore thumb, and has that, isn't "glued sound.

Mass is more likely to reach for plug-ins to smear the vocal when imho, they are looking at the wrong suspect. And so it goes...

My strategy is to make the obvious less noticeable which can be done using filters on the samplers until there is less noticeable difference between killers sounding samples and first generation capture of a lesser sound quality. That makes mixing easy :)

The other alternative to avoid that vocal "Karaoke sound" is to improve your recording gear to the level of your sample libraries, VSTi, analog synths, keyboards, DI, and instruments that usually sound bigger than the vox. Big Rail pre's, high end converters, stellar mics and great room acoustics are the best choice but that comes at a price.

Basically what my strategy is: if something is not quite up to the standard of the rest of the mix, it seems to glue better to reduce to the weakest link over trying to put lipstick on the pig.

This a really good thread, Tony! Am I answering this precisely? I am understanding what you are thinking about now and what sparked this discussion? In all the thousands of posts over the years, this may be one of the first where someone actually touched on why this would even be a question. Its usually an all or nothing thought, a closed way of thinking and hate towards understanding more about why samplers and VSTi isn't working for some.
I fully understand why we want to track it all in our studio, regardless of how bad or dated we sound. We like it and thats the way it is.

I get that. Its real and thats the way I like it.
But, there is also another world full of writers and new music that use technology.

I hate samplers, VSTi because they don't sound good. .

But its quite the contrary to me. Mass is using inferior tracking tools while combining very well produced libraries. "calling the Kettle Black". Whats really happening is we are hearing how poor/ different/ out of place our tracking and acoustic are to a world class sound and capture process.

What sparked this thread Tony?

Could it also be titled different. I hate to see it missed by so many. Its a great thread. I'm thinking about the title and more about this topic.

Somewhere in this thread and description is a better title:
Tips and techniques on how to combine well produced sound libraries, DI with average to low end acoustics and tracking chains.
What are we expecting and how can we get it to glue?

@Makzimia Am I getting closer to what you are asking here?

I actually lost where I was going with it from the beginning Chris LOL. It was really supposed to be more about what you record in, keep the sound clean, or have the effects on it from the beginning :D. Where you went with it is fine though, also very relevant. To me as I said in the beginning, because I am not so technical, I rely on sounds as I am doing something, if I don't hear THE sound, it's harder for me to get what I am after. It's relevant as I look forward to recording the next of the Minstrel songs. Once I am completely over the flu.

I am toying with recording guitar and vocal at the same next time and just dealing with the bleed for example. While I agreed that turning effects off on the keyboard helped, it also made it a little harder to hear the right feel (only slightly, since I had it all worked out of course). The Presonus RC 500, my Tascam and my TC Helicons have good preamps, not the level you have, but better than I have used in the past.

Makzimia, post: 426559, member: 48344 wrote: While I agreed that turning effects off on the keyboard helped, it also made it a little harder to hear the right feel (only slightly, since I had it all worked out of course).

Are you not tracking your keyboard? If so, put a reverb/delay on it in the DAW as you are tracking or monitoring it. The same as you would recording a Vox. Works great!

Makzimia, post: 426559, member: 48344 wrote: It was really supposed to be more about what you record in, keep the sound clean, or have the effects on it from the beginning

Gotcha. Its amazing how we can all interpret something out of a thread. I struggle to word things in mine because I know it can be very easily misunderstood in such a subject technology. Mine threads always have a related sub-directories to the main OP which starts to get wordy and inevitably hard to understand.

Again, are you not able to use an effect of some sort but not track it? I do this all the time for me or the talent.

I still record as clean as I can, and I never record with any effects attached. Frankly, too many projects require going back. From time to time I may well record in parallel, one with processing and one without, but I spent a long time on the conquest for clean, and clean can be processed. for me that is the absolute essential requirement. Even if I know I will process a source, I still record it first. I've messed up a keys track or two by not recording it sans FX, so disabling FX presets is also something I tend to do a lot. I have to admit to sometimes recording processed distorted guitars without any clean parallel path - only recently have I tried going in clean, then a loop to the guitar processor - but results so far are a bit variable. I can't quite get the same sound... yet!

audiokid paulears I have used DAW plugins to track monitoring (bus) through obviously. I just found in the past it didn't work as well. I admittedly haven't tried since the RME card came into play. As for parrallel pathing Paul, yes, I have seen a lot of people advocating that. I wonder though, if you know what sound you want, why would you worry?. You've practiced the song ( they have?), sound was picked out, change of heart at mix maybe I guess. Keyboard sounds on really good keyboards these days have amazing effects systems of their own. Some of the sounds have the feel they do because how they were setup, doesn't mean you couldn't get close enough at tracking time pseudo wise of course. Same goes for vocals too.

Makzimia, post: 426563, member: 48344 wrote: I have used DAW plugins to track through obviously.

No NEVER to track through. You put the plugin (reverb or whatever effect on a DAW bus. You never track through it.

audiokid, post: 426564, member: 1 wrote: You never track through it.

Wrong wording... I meant as in they are on the track like monitoring.. I'm sick Chris :-/. Fixed.

assign a reverb on a DAW channel that the external keyboard is connected to. Create an Aux, same Aux reverb you are using for the entire session on that Aux and add it to the keyboard. You can use that same reverb/delay for your vocals.

Make sense now?

Makzimia, post: 426565, member: 48344 wrote: Wrong wording... I meant as in they are on the track like monitoring.. I'm sick Chris :-/.

drink lots of water! We need you better :)

Logic Pro has a setting which allows software monitoring on or off. In the past I disabled it, because prior to the RME card it was laggy or required a big buffer.

Makzimia, post: 426563, member: 48344 wrote: Keyboard sounds on really good keyboards these days have amazing effects systems of their own. Some of the sounds have the feel they do because how they were setup, doesn't mean you couldn't get close enough at tracking time pseudo wise of course. Same goes for vocals too.

I admit, I use my Kronos X effects all the time, but keyboard patched that sound wide don't sum in mono well. So, if you are cool with that, then that's all that matters.
But, you can get a better mix more times than not by learning what the effect is about on the keyboard and emulating it on 2-bus Aux of the mix rather than just the one instrument doing a completely different room emulation. One reverb is always better than two out of sync.
I'm not saying do that, but it is a good trick to have ready when you are struggling to get your other tracks to mix with those big unreal keyboard patches!

Makzimia, post: 426568, member: 48344 wrote: Logic Pro has a setting which allows software monitoring on or off. In the past I disabled it, because prior to the RME card it was laggy or required a big buffer.

This is why we use hardware reverbs and a console ( which you have an Eventide), BUT, I am able to do this ITB on one DAW as well, as long as I am not using a pile of other plugins during critical tracking.
This is why I use very little plugins to begin with, and not until mixing, do I actually pull out the big guns and start processing. This way, you should be able to get the buffer / latency down to almost unnoticeable and track all the stuff you need until mix time. I have tracked with a 64 buffer (for sure 256) with the Orion32 and the RME Madi for hours and never a glitch. I don't see why you couldn't get it to that on your big Mac! ;)
Make sure you remove the Orion 32 USB for tracking and mixing. Its a USB port pig.

audiokid, post: 426569, member: 1 wrote: I'm not saying do that, but it is a good trick to have ready when you are struggling to get your other tracks to mix with those big unreal keyboard patches

Completely agree, and I mentioned before it's a live practice I had, to make my 2 keyboards and modules sound melded in the PA. Like a lot of things I did learn, I unlearned them with lack of consistently working on stuff. Having someone say it, is like, oh yeah, well, that makes sense. Why would you try to meld multiple different reverbs. Then I am reminded of recording Eric and his band, Mike ( the drummer) and I sat and put a plate reverb in on a snare hit in one spot once on a hollies song, that was fun. I just need to stop freaking out so much, or getting impatient with myself :). Basic ways of doing things don't change, and the more you do those, the less you have to think about it.

The biggest reason I removed the X-patch from the equation, and the 'master' dbx chain with the eventide was to remove a variable I wasn't 100% confident in, in the end, I am used to ITB more at the moment again. So, now I need to get back into monitoring on with a bus during recording again next time.

audiokid, post: 426570, member: 1 wrote: I have tracked with a 64 buffer with the Orion32 and the RME Madi for hours and never a glitch. I don't see why you couldn't get it to that on your big Mac

Yeah, I can run almost zero latency now. I haven't used the Orion on USB since I got the RME other than to update the firmware, then it's disconnected again. The Mac is a beast, the issue was the Mackie 1640i Onyx before, and the Orion when it was on USB. RME Madi is the bomb. I just haven't farted around with that idea yet. The Minstrel and Marie was my first actual new recording at all in the new studio.

The way you connected the X-Patch was wrong to me. 1 X-Patch equals an 8 channel mono or 4 stereo channel bus router. I only use 1-8 channels for hardware and the other 9-16 to connect the X-Patch to the analog 1-8 analog I/O of the Orion . This way you have a seamless fully transparent digital patchbay / switching router. Its very much like the Dangerous Liaison. Once you get onto that, you won't be having all that phasing and problematic routing .
As an example, I use one X-Patch connected to 2 Bricasti and 1 Eventide processors which are the last 25 to 30 channels of the Orion32. The last 2 (31/32) I use for a preamp feed for tracking live.

I create Aux for reverb and delays, assigned those to Stem OTB into the SSL X-Patch and back again.
This way you aren't using any VST in the DAW. Its seamless and sounds great.
You aren't tracking to it this way, they are in a loop like inserts on your DAW but done right. You feed the Outboard processors via your aux sends to the Aux bus which goes OTB to the X-Patch Follow? . Works stellar. Thats how you should do it.

edited above.

FWIW, I never track with any processing or effects being printed (unless you count the natural distortion on my Fender DeVille amp as being an"effect"). I don't even use FX pedals for guitar tracks. I'll put a dynamic or ribbon mic (or both) on the amp, get the general tone I want on the amp, and record it. Occasionally, I'll split the cable coming from the jack of the guitar and send the un-amped signal direct to the DAW for a clean track, while still miking the amp and sending that to its own track on the DAW.

I understand that there are those performers who may like to hear a bit of reverb or delay on their voices while recording - and with the Presonus, I can give them those things to monitor - if they prefer, but I don't print those FX as part of the performance.

There was a time, back in the days of tape (and some digital decks, too) where I might have added ( and printed) some light compression to drums or vocals, in order to reign in those occasional transients that could distort tape, or peak a digital track, but there's no real need for that much anymore because you no longer have to record that hot to a DAW to get quality sound, as there's no tape noise to be concerned with covering up, and because with higher bit resolutions, you don't have to worry about getting that close to 0db anymore to get great sound quality. (When tracking, I generally shoot for around -18 to -12 RMS with peaks around -10 to -6 or so).

Tracking with effects (printed) can be very dicey; because you may find that as the song changes throughout the project's life, and when mixed with other instrumentation, you might not like the processing or effect you chose originally, and once it's been recorded that way, getting rid of the processing/effect is like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

I add effects and processing once I'm inside the DAW. I hardly ever put FX into track inserts, I most always create Auggies for reverb, delay, etc. I'll commonly insert processors at the track or subgroup level, but depending on what I'm after, I'll also occasionally assign processors to Aug's as well, and use the Aux sends on the tracks to send that track to the processor, which can give me control of the amount of the processing vs the unprocessed track... it's really no different than the "mix" control that you will sometimes see on some plug in processors - for example, Magix Am-munition has a "mix" adjustment, which allows you to control the ratio between processed and unprocessed signal.... which pretty much does the same thing as using the Aux method described above.

I also prefer to add GR ( light) to the 2-bus from the start (usually Magix Am-munition, as Chris taught me a cool way to use it) because I prefer to mix into a compressor, as opposed to slapping one on the 2-bus after I've mixed. I realize there are many pro engineers who prefer to add GR to the stereo bus as the final step, ... but personally, I've found my mixes to sound better if there is GR on the master bus for me to mix to.

I don't use OB FX, because the OB gear I have is older, and beyond adding noise, I also don't believe it sounds as good as the same types of FX I have available ITB. In short, there's nothing I have in my OB rack that I can't get ITB - and the ITB generally has much better sonics, and less noise, too.

Chris and I differ somewhat on our opinions about plug ins in general, but we absolutely do agree that you shouldn't use them to track through. I've never done that - truthfully, I don't even know how to do that, even if I wanted to (which I don't).
IMO, it's best to keep your signal as unaffected as you can while recording - mic or instrument > pre > I-O Capture > DAW - and use any necessary processing or FX ITB in the mixing stage (unless you have some OB gear you prefer to use while mixing, but even then, I still feel that it's still best to wait until the mixing stage to use it).

IMHO of course.

d.

Makzimia, post: 426563, member: 48344 wrote: audiokid paulears As for parrallel pathing Paul, yes, I have seen a lot of people advocating that. I wonder though, if you know what sound you want, why would you worry?

As most of my work involves live performances, much of my time is producing tracks for other performers, and quite often I go to old projects and rework them for new versions for the same client. I'm actually kicking myself for not doing my usual parallel thing on one track from 2004 I'm currently working on. For some reason I have a nice Yamaha grand on one track - and it has reverb on it, and I can't find the dry one! Back then I suspect track counts and processor overhead made me make decisions early, so what I'm working with is probably not the original track at all, but the piano with a couple of my favourite reverbs of the time - maybe even external ones, mixed down to a single track. I never do this now, but back then? On more recent projects, going back to a totally dry track can give me the chance to use my current dynamic style - which listening back to the old stuff, I don't like now. On saxes, I always do certain things with them, and while recording use these in the monitors - sometimes the processed version works for me in the mix, but often, after all the other stuff is added, it gets a bit swampy, so the dry track is very handy. Most of the really nice tweaks in my monitor mix don't really work that well in the end product. Oddly, if I play sax, without reverb, I don't play as well - I can record it, so do, but the dry version is more useful.

DonnyThompson, post: 426576, member: 46114 wrote: Tracking with effects (printed) can be very dicey; because you may find that as the song changes throughout the project's life, and when mixed with other instrumentation, you might not like the processing or effect you chose originally, and once it's been recorded that way, getting rid of the processing/effect is like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Good quotable :). Yep, and it's why most of us went to getting a clean shot of what we do. I just was made to wonder, which is what prompted the thread :D. I am fine now with my OB gear setup. I just got to a point (when the firmware bug happened with the Orion) and me getting the total mix control panel, but not thinking through one consequence of one of my initial submix setups. I backed off to give myself time to just record :).

Can I ask what your gain chain during tracking is ?

I'm asking because you mentioned "being fine with your OB setup", so I'm just curious if you are routing through any OB gear in particular - other than your pre/capture device - while tracking?

DonnyThompson Nothing other than preamp gear now. I do have the option off the rc500 to use an insert, did try the Yamaha Spx90, but removed it. OB is for mixing only. Yamaha, lexicon, DBX and Eventide etc.

Guitars (mics acoustic) and keys on focusrite Octopre mk2 dynamic. Vocals on presonus rc500, so far.

Makzimia, post: 426568, member: 48344 wrote: Logic Pro has a setting which allows software monitoring on or off. In the past I disabled it, because prior to the RME card it was laggy or required a big buffer.

Most daws have the option to optimize the workflow, so during tracking you may or may not need software or hardware / hybrid monitoring on.

I found this quote from Kurt, who is one of our veterans who has tracked a lot of people and bands. Kurt, do you still feel this way and if so why?

Kurt Foster, post: 406676, member: 7836 wrote: if i had 80 grand and a need i'd get an API.as far

as recording guitars, try using an amp with a spring reverb and track the guitar with reverb on.

@ audiokid Kurt Foster

I can't speak for Kurt, of course, but knowing his love for analog, I wouldn't be surprised to read that he would use this scenario, nor would I necessarily disagree with him, either.

I think that spring reverb on a classic amp, fits into the category of an amp's natural sound, just as tube-driven distortion does.

As I mentioned above in a previous post, I would consider this to be one of those "rare exceptions" to my opinion that normally sways against tracking with "FX".

The sound of a spring reverb in an old Fender amp sounds far different than that of the digital reverb that we most commonly use in our DAW's..

For lack of a better description, it's a "pluckier" and "grainier" sounding type of reverb, a kind of accepted "retro" sonic characteristic, and like distortion, is considered by most to be inherent and "natural" to the sound of those older amps.

FWIW, I think that Rotary speaker systems, like Leslie's, are also an exception, as is the sound of an actual Hammond B3, where you are driving the tubes. These are sonic characteristics that are considered by most to be a part of the sound of those instruments.

When saying that I didn't think it was a good idea to track with effects, I was referring more to the scenario of using OB FX to track through, especially FX that could just as easily be added to a dry signal (and removed just as as easily) afterwards.

IMO

d.

Other than tracking a vox with an LA2A just to kiss it going in.... I'm on the fence with effects because most times you can do everything ITB so why print what you might change later.

Imho, this question is dependent on time factors, acoustics and how good, better best you want the capture to sound live.
Also, if I was doing the fast and cheap approach, I would record a band or whatever with as little "fix it in the mix" approach and call it a day.

But if I was tracking and producing something I felt had huge potential, I would track it all as clean as I could and re-amp, and actually mix it.

i will track with compression and eq but rarely do i print verbs. i will print spring verb from an amp however even though i had a Peavy Valveverb for authentic spring verbs at mix. i like to wait for mix to add verbs and effects because i can generate a stereo mix from mono sources that way.

i usually set up 4 aux's for effects ... and my m/o is pretty constant. aux 1 is a global reverb usually set at about 2000 ms with a 30 m/s pre delay. aux 2 is usual a delay set for 1 slap at an appropriate time for the song ... aux 3 is a chorus or flange i use to make movement and depth to the mix and aux 4 goes to the Eventide 3000 for psychedelic sh*t.

i find that i can't use the same workflow on DAW as i can with a console. it's hard to set up a C/R monitoring mix that sounds the same as the phones or what i have for playback. it drives me nuts when that stuff is not the same. shifting mix's just kill me. that's one of the things a nice console does that's hard to get itb.

would i still go for an API? sure, if i thought i could recoup ... i would also love a Neve or a Harrison or even a APB Dyna Sonics. ... there's lots of nice, smaller analog consoles available now. something tells me analog is here to stay despite predictions of it's demise.

Kurt Foster, post: 426787, member: 7836 wrote: something tells me analog is here to stay despite predictions of it's demise.

Without doubt.
The alternative to a 32 IO ITB hybrid system that works like a large console (which is what I have been using for a few years , is equal in costs to large format desks in the $100,000 + range.
Most people who are at that point in this business where they need that kind of quality, zero latency monitoring and channel count discover it costs thousands to put together a comparable 32 track hybrid system. Its not a system with endless testimonials we read about in forums either. Where a console is proven and easy to set up and go.
Plus, it looks better too. or more fitting for the style and client base.

To clarify, a hybrid DAW system with hybrid monitoring add-ons does all you are wishing for and more Kurt, but it comes at a big price and a learning curve most of us aren't willing to trial and error on.
So, I have no doubt 99% of the population in all our shoes focused on tracking, would be way better off buying an older Midas, etc and just using a computer to print and master to. I see this trend growing and growing.
$10,000 to $20,000 and we can have a system that is way better than a cheezy hybrid rig with the round trip and monitor latency issues to say the least.
People going back to a simple console are going to be raving about this, and I hope it grows leaps and bounds because it will produce better organic music. DAW's suck in the wrong hands and they are also creating music that is impossible to perform live. The question is, I don't think the youth cares about that anymore. Vocals and a DAW is where the mass is heading.

Anyway, I respect it all so I just wanted to say that they do in fact make hybrid systems that you wish for Kurt, but its a lot of money and time thats just isn't worth it.

Long live real music. Leave the virtual world for the Electronic music lovers, video and movie industry.

it's very refreshing to hear you say that Chris.

my take is the person who records one at a times, can do fine with a itb DAW. imo it would be stupendously stupid to opt for any type of console in that scenario. but the second we start tracking live with multiple phone and C/R monitoring and playback mix's, a console of some type make sense. if only for monitoring.

i myself will be itb and summing passively into a second recorder for under $2000 (monitors and interfaces included).

I agree with both of you - it depends entirely on what the workflow is.

As Kurt mentioned, it would be pretty silly for someone like myself to purchase a big desk, if 99% of the time I'm only tracking 1 to 3 tracks at once.

I can accomplish that recording scenario with say, 3 nice preamps - one transparent 2 -4 channel, one single channel with transformers and one single channel with tubes. There's not much need for me to be using - or taking up room for - a LF desk in that scenario. I'm not tracking bands, or working with other multi-performer acts in a recording situation. I'm strictly solo artist production these days.

I have the ability to set up 3 different HP mixes with the Presonus Mixing Software, as well as switch between different monitor sets.

I can do all that I do ITB. For those times when I want to add compression to a vocal on the way in, I'm co-owner of an 1176LN, so if I don't happen to have it at the time, I make a call, and pick it up for whatever tracking I'm doing that requires it.

For what I'm doing these days, a full-blown "traditional" recording rig is overkill, and would be - at least for me - an investment that I'd never see a return on.

That doesn't' mean that I think analog is dead... far from it. In fact, like the both of you, I've seen a slow but steady return to it. And if you have the money, the space, the knowledge to maintain the gear, and can foresee a return on the investment, then you should go that direction if it's a direction you prefer and can afford.

IMHO

d.

I'm actually doing more tracking with effects now that I have an Apollo, especially with guitar tones.

I just treat it like it was actual hardware.

gdoubleyou, post: 426888, member: 11080 wrote: I'm actually doing more tracking with effects now that I have an Apollo, especially with guitar tones.

I just treat it like it was actual hardware.

Man, I would love to hear how things sound. Please post some of your work sometime! I don't think there are any rules, and plugin tracking is only going to increase. If you are getting the tones you want, then right on!