[[email protected]]

To anyone who may be able to help...

I never used ADAT 8 track when it was popular, what, 15 years ago? I
was wondering how recordings made on the Alesis XT20 (or other
available ADATs) would be transferred to a pc laptop (I'm on xp,
pentium III). It looks like the Adat has a digital optical out in the
form of a rectangular Toslink. Would that run to a digital in on some
type of laptop adapter I could get? And then how would that transfer
be initiated?

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer,
with the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality
recording that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

Any advice would be appreciated. I've also considered using a Sony
minidisc multitrack recorder but they record at a compressed codec of
128 kbps and the units only have unbalanced RCA outs, so I'd have to
rerecord everything with another D/A to A/D conversion to get it to
CD. However, maybe that wouldn't be too bad conceptually (128 kbps is
about 10% of what linear PCM mode at 44.1 mHz/16 bit requires), with a
decent mastering. Anybody want to ridicule me for thinking it's
possible? :*) I record ambient drum and bass type music, and today's
multitrack options seem to interfere with the composition process.

thanks again. Lou

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

I was wondering how recordings made on the Alesis XT20 (or other
available ADATs) would be transferred to a pc laptop (I'm on xp,
pentium III). It looks like the Adat has a digital optical out in the
form of a rectangular Toslink. Would that run to a digital in on some
type of laptop adapter I could get? And then how would that transfer
be initiated?

First, you need a working ADAT. Assuming you're that far alongm
basically, the process is to play the ADAT tape and record it into the
PC. There are many ADAT optical interfaces available for a PC, some
internal (PCI card) and some external (Firewire or USB2) and that's what
you need to make a digital connection between the two. There are dozens
of recording programs that you can use, many of which are free or quite
inexpensive. If all you want is files, any one will do. If you intend to
use the computer for mixing, then you might want to be fussier about
your choice of program because you'll be living with it for a long time
and you'll have a lot to learn.

Probably the least expensive solution for connecting the ADAT to the PC
is the Frontier Design Wavecenter PCI card, but it's obsolete (making it
a good match for your Pentium III) so you'll have to find one.

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer,

Do you have an analog mixer? ADATs have analog outputs. You can connect
analog-to-analog and record the mix to your PC, or any other stereo
recording device that you choose to use. That's the simplest approach,
but most people have the gut feeling that once audio has been digitized,
it needs to stay digital or horrible things will happen like the dreaded
"loss of quality." This is simply not so, but it's hard to fight human
nature. You may be able to find a suitable mixer for less than you'll
have to pay for a PC hardware interface and software, and using it will
become obvious after just a few minutes.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Anahata]

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:01:16 -0700, mitchellrenner wrote:

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer, with
the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality recording
that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

You want to record multi track separately, keep it multitrack and then
transfer to PC?

Your best bet may be to look at the details of standalone hard disk based
"studio in a box" units and find one that gives you a simple way of
transferring the tracks (not just the stereo mix) to computer, typically
by USB. The Yamaha AW1600-G, for example certainly has USB and I think if
you plug it into a PC's USB port the PC sees an external disk drive
with .WAV files on it.

You'll get all the mixing and processing etc. for free, but the sales-
volume driven nature of the market is such that it's a cheaper option
than one (if it exists) that doesn't do the things you don't need, and it
doesn't take long to larn to use if all you want to do is record a few
tracks and then transfer them to PC later.

I've also considered using a Sony
minidisc multitrack recorder

Compared with a modern standalone HD based unit, that gives you nothing
useful extra. I've used a MD multi track and lack of digital or per-track
outputs was one of its biggest disadvantages for me.

today's multitrack
options seem to interfere with the composition process.

You'll have to exaplain that in more detail to get a useful answer.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Anahata]

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:47:23 -0500, anahata wrote:

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:01:16 -0700, mitchellrenner wrote:

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer, with
the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality recording
that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

You want to record multi track separately, keep it multitrack and then
transfer to PC?

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your question... you already have existing
mutitrack recordings (ADAT etc) and want to mix them without using a
PC? ...in which case Mike's reply makes perfect sense.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

I never used ADAT 8 track when it was popular, what, 15 years ago? I
was wondering how recordings made on the Alesis XT20 (or other
available ADATs) would be transferred to a pc laptop (I'm on xp,
pentium III). It looks like the Adat has a digital optical out in the
form of a rectangular Toslink. Would that run to a digital in on some
type of laptop adapter I could get? And then how would that transfer
be initiated?

That is ADAT Lightpipe. You can get a Lightpipe interface for your
laptop.

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer,
with the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality
recording that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

Why not dump the PC entirely and mix down with a regular console?

Any advice would be appreciated. I've also considered using a Sony
minidisc multitrack recorder but they record at a compressed codec of
128 kbps and the units only have unbalanced RCA outs, so I'd have to
rerecord everything with another D/A to A/D conversion to get it to
CD. However, maybe that wouldn't be too bad conceptually (128 kbps is
about 10% of what linear PCM mode at 44.1 mHz/16 bit requires), with a
decent mastering. Anybody want to ridicule me for thinking it's
possible? :*) I record ambient drum and bass type music, and today's
multitrack options seem to interfere with the composition process.

The problem is that the converters in the ADAT are just awful. The
Tascam machines are a little better... you can find a DA-38 for cheap
and the converters aren't horrible although they aren't anything to write
home about. Budget about $350/year for the annual maintenance, which is
about what the maintenance costs on the ADAT are too. Or consider a
modern standalone hard disk recorder.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The problem is that the converters in the ADAT are just awful.

Scott,

Please remember Tonebarge and the stuff he brought to one of the RP CD
compilations, recorded into the 20 bit ADAT's, and sounding like a
million legit bucks, mixed on a "vintage" Mackie 1604.

I'm thinking in long hindsight that part of it might have been keeping
levels low on the way in. Whatever he did, that's what he used, and
killed the work of many folks, regardless of kit.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

The problem is that the converters in the ADAT are just awful.

Please remember Tonebarge and the stuff he brought to one of the RP CD
compilations, recorded into the 20 bit ADAT's, and sounding like a
million legit bucks, mixed on a "vintage" Mackie 1604.

Yes, and I bet he was fighting like hell all the way down.

I'm thinking in long hindsight that part of it might have been keeping
levels low on the way in. Whatever he did, that's what he used, and
killed the work of many folks, regardless of kit.

The Mackie wants the levels low, but the ADAT gets grainy at low levels.
I don't have a solution for that but it might involve pads.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[DeeAa[_3_]]

On 8 syys, 13:01, wrote:
To anyone who may be able to help...

I never used ADAT 8 track when it was popular, what, 15 years ago? *I
was wondering how recordings made on the Alesis XT20 (or other
available ADATs) would be transferred to a pc laptop (I'm on xp,
pentium III). *It looks like the Adat has a digital optical out in the
form of a rectangular Toslink. *Would that run to a digital in on some
type of laptop adapter I could get? *And then how would that transfer
be initiated?

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer,
with the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality
recording that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

Any advice would be appreciated. *I've also considered using a Sony
minidisc multitrack recorder but they record at a compressed codec of
128 kbps and the units only have unbalanced RCA outs, so I'd have to
rerecord everything with another D/A to A/D conversion to get it to
CD. *However, maybe that wouldn't be too bad conceptually (128 kbps is
about 10% of what linear PCM mode at 44.1 mHz/16 bit requires), with a
decent mastering. *Anybody want to ridicule me for thinking it's
possible? *:*) *I record ambient drum and bass type music, and today's
multitrack options seem to interfere with the composition process.

thanks again. *Lou

Hey Lou,

I'm no pro but I have been doing pretty much what you - I had a Fostex
recorder onto which I recorded, and then transferred the contents via
ADAT lightpipe to my PC (Cubase) which is just a matter of selecting
ADAT input and creating 8 tracks, one for each ADAT track and hitting
record. It works fine. I used a cheap EMU 1212 soundcard for
transfer...you'd need a PCMIA or USB card...I think Echo Layla would
work, or something similar.

I now however upgraded to a Presonus Firepod, which came with Cubase
LE too...now I don't need to carry the fostex - I just plug mics into
the firepod and the firepod to my laptop and record directly to
Cubase, I do lose the pre-recording EQ etc. and have to live with just
level control during recording, but in exchange I get pristine 48/24
recordings directly to my DAW, which is great. No real-time hassles
with copying back and forth and no extra conversion stages. Plus the
laptop and the firepod fit in a small suitcase easily along with all
the eight mics I need, much less than the recorder.

But anyway, if you want to stick with the record-to-adat first, you
just need a soundcard that has ADAT in. Then it's easy, but also
happens in real time.

Cheers,

Dee

[[email protected]]

From the information I gather, it looks like ADAT would be more of a
hassle than it's worth. I don't have one currently. Since most of my
music is ambient/minimalist I have a lot of low level audio, I don't
like the idea of bad converters, and the equipment maintenance could
be another hitch. Still, it might be the *best* option within my
ascetically-natured parameters (story of my life). To answer another
question, no I wouldn't need to transfer the channels separately to
computer, so all I would need to do would be to mix down to something,
so I would probably just go into my Echo adapter's stereo mini in on
the laptop to some shareware program to burn to CD. Mike, thanks for
pointing out that going from digital back to analog isn't necessarily
a doomed signal path.

Basically I only need four tracks, maybe bounce ability, and some real-
time mixing ability along with some aux sends for effects routing.
Limiting/compressing signal processing would be a bonus. I'm trying
to avoid the computer, because I don't seem to agree with using it to
record with. It's counterintuitive to me and I know there are
external control modules with knobs and levers you can use to control
the recording software, but it doesn't work for me. I just need one
small device to record tracks to, and then be able to send a stereo
signal out for mixdown to CD.

Compared with a modern standalone HD based unit, that gives you nothing
useful extra. I've used a MD multi track and lack of digital or per-track
outputs was one of its biggest disadvantages for me.

I like the looks of the Sony MDM X4 multitrack minidisc recorder for
my needs. I looks like it has outputs per channel, bounce capability,
and it functions as a mixer which is something I need. No digital
out, just -10 db RCAs. That along with the 128 kbps Atrac 3.5
compression format sort of scares me, but everything else is perfect.
The type of recording I do is all live manipulation so I don't really
need to go in and edit afterwards. I just need to dub another stereo
track on top afterwards. The other option seems to be the new hard
disk recorder Tascam DP-02, but that lacks the inputs of the Sony MDM
X4. Maybe there are some older devices in-between these two that
would work similarly, but I haven't found anything yet, that
approaches the simple/elegant design of these units. For quality of
sound, the Tascam DP would win over the Sony since it records to 44.1
kHz/16 bit and the top-end model has a built-in CD burner.

Maybe I should start my own company for a new generation of four track
recorders for minimalists.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Basically I only need four tracks, maybe bounce ability, and some real-
time mixing ability along with some aux sends for effects routing.
Limiting/compressing signal processing would be a bonus. I'm trying
to avoid the computer, because I don't seem to agree with using it to
record with. It's counterintuitive to me and I know there are
external control modules with knobs and levers you can use to control
the recording software, but it doesn't work for me. I just need one
small device to record tracks to, and then be able to send a stereo
signal out for mixdown to CD.

So, buy an Ampex 440B-4, and a Mackie 1202, and be done with it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

So, buy an Ampex 440B-4, and a Mackie 1202, and be done with it.
--scott

I like the concept (and bluntness) but reel to reel would be new
territory. But I do love tape. Maybe I'll look into analog recording
to VCR tape.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
So, buy an Ampex 440B-4, and a Mackie 1202, and be done with it.

I like the concept (and bluntness) but reel to reel would be new
territory. But I do love tape. Maybe I'll look into analog recording
to VCR tape.

That's the worst of both worlds. You get nasty FM crap, head switching
artifacts, auto gain, and you can't edit it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Sep 8, 1:58*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
So, buy an Ampex 440B-4, and a Mackie 1202, and be done with it.

I like the concept (and bluntness) but reel to reel would be new
territory. *But I do love tape. *Maybe I'll look into analog recording
to VCR tape.

That's the worst of both worlds. *You get nasty FM crap, head switching
artifacts, auto gain, and you can't edit it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Those do not sound like beneficial attributes.

Is there any medium you haven't recorded to Scott?

I'm leaning towards the new Tascam, for its simplicity.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Those do not sound like beneficial attributes.

They are not. Hi-Fi VHS was something that people used a lot back in the
eighties when they needed very long running times and didn't need the best
sound quality. It was cheap and ran for a long time, which made it fine for
low budget logging, etc.

Is there any medium you haven't recorded to Scott?

Lots of them, but there aren't too many that I haven't played back at one
time or another.

I'm leaning towards the new Tascam, for its simplicity.

A bunch of companies are making small standalone multitrack recorders.
Tascam, yes, but also Fostex and the like. If possible, get something
with good analogue outputs so that you CAN mix down on a console rather
than fighting trying to mix with a mouse. If you only want four channels
you can get a decent console for not much money.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
So, buy an Ampex 440B-4, and a Mackie 1202, and be done with it.
I like the concept (and bluntness) but reel to reel would be new
territory. But I do love tape. Maybe I'll look into analog recording
to VCR tape.

That's the worst of both worlds. You get nasty FM crap, head switching
artifacts, auto gain, and you can't edit it.
--scott

I used to have a Hi-Fi that didn't have auto gain. If you used good tape
it sounded as good as a DAT at the time, maybe a little better (the
PCM2500 was king in those days)

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 8, 1:57 pm, wrote:
From the information I gather, it looks like ADAT would be more of a
hassle than it's worth. I don't have one currently.

That makes a big difference. Somehow from your initial post I thought
you had ADAT recordings that you wanted to work with.

The other option seems to be the new hard
disk recorder Tascam DP-02

That would probably be a good approach for you. There are lots of
things in that family, most of which are 8-track, but that's OK.
Usually they're a limited 8-track, like you can only record four at a
time, or they only have four inputs, or something like that. So you're
not getting full 8-track capability in all of them, but you're not
paying for it either. TASCAM, Korg, Roland/Boss, Yamaha, and maybe a
couple of others all make integrated workstations like this. Go to a
music store and kick some tires. You really can't get a sense of how
sensible they are to operate by looking at specs on line.

[DeeAa[_3_]]

On 8 syys, 20:57, wrote:

Maybe I should start my own company for a new generation of four track
recorders for minimalists.

Maybe not a bad idea .-)

Look, I'm not trying to aggravate here or anything, but I don't get it
how can an external mixer with everything be more complicated than
using a DAW on a laptop or something?

With a recorder/mixer there's all kinds of hassles to worry about,
plus once you got them tracks on the machine, it's pure hell to try
and bounce and arrange stuff and fuhgeddaboud editing etc. I think it
seriously limits any creativity and the complex technology gets in the
way, and when you're done, you need to mix it (which you can't do
again once its set then) which also takes a lotta time AND is
difficult.

With a DAW on the other hand, all you need is load the multitracker,
plug in the mics and all you need to worry is not to overload inputs.
Just press record. No need to create new tracks, bounce, label, find,
sort, tweak with anything. Just hit record and go and there's nothing
to stop you playing for 3 hours at one go, no need to worry about
tracks and space and whatever...nothing gets in the way of creativity
at all. I often just use one single project for like 10 songs and just
play them in a row then, same mix works for all of them. Plus audio
quality will be pristine. The whole thing happens easily and without
hassle, just hit rec.

Then when you're thru, you actually _see_ the music you just made;
select bits you like and drag and drop with a mouse to even create
totally new songs and rhythms, do whatever you want. Save it for 10
years and then mix. Send to someone else to mix. Make 10 different
mixes and you can always go back and remix it still. And you don't
need to learn much anything about it, just drag and drop and
experiment with plugins and it'll get you very far even if you don't
know jack **** about computers or music mixing etc....there are
zillions of plugins that do stuff semi-automatically for you. Hell
these days you almost just have to ask the computer and it does all
but composes for you. Want a drummer? Just hit 'add midi instrument'
and select the drummer you like and have installed, drag and drop drum
loops to project with a mouse. Easier than finding which hole is for
the 1/4 input jack. I just can't see how is that more complicated than
even a 4-channel small mixer? I find using an outboard compressor
several times more difficult than using a simple DAW like Cubase. (and
although they are simple on the surface, I don't even know half of
what is possible if you delve deep in them).

And not even to start with MIDI. Just plugin an el cheapo keyboard to
the same DAW and lay down some MIDI tracks, again no limits to any
direction. Create songs and not worry about even what sounds to
use...play them in with harmonica and a year later change the sounds
to some nice orchestral synth and it's a whole different song.

All in all...I've been making home recordings and music for years and
years, learning as I go. I used to have outboard gear, mixers, stuff,
recorders...but when I really found the DAW recording, the whole
recording thing in itself has turned from time-hogging necessity to
something transparent that I don't need to worry about at all. Just
plugin and go, when the idea hits I can just turn on the DAW and hit
rec and I'll be making music in less than a minute. I've got dozens of
songs on my DAW waiting, and sometimes I just load one of them and
evolve the idea, apply a few new sounds and maybe drums or something,
and before I know it, I have a new song.

I just think nothing is as easy and liberating as Cubase and a
soundcard on my laptop.

Cheers,

Dee

p.s. if you go to http://deeaa.pp.fi you can find some of my home
recorded stuff...first up is my live band which I recorded at the
training facility and the second collection 'devil make up' I made
home with drum machines etc...and I still have both projects on my DAW
so if I want to, I can just remix them again, or send somewhere to be
remixed. Play the guitars again if I want...anything is possible. And
I could NEVER in a million years do that without the DAW system.

ps2. This is just my 2c of course. But I have helped a few friends,
hobby musicians, who hardly used a computer before put up a simple DAW
and every single one has been completely excited over it right off the
start and now are recording new music like crazy, and good
stuff...stuff they would never have even attempted with the hassle of
recorders and mixers and whatnot.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 9, 12:15 am, DeeAa wrote:

Look, I'm not trying to aggravate here or anything, but I don't get it
how can an external mixer with everything be more complicated than
using a DAW on a laptop or something?

This is one of those "There are two kinds of people in the world"
things. People who can relate to hardware logically can put one and
one and one together and get three. You can look at the pieces, figure
out how they go together, and make stuff work the way you expect it to
work. People who have never done anything more with electronics than
plug in the computer can't understand interconnections, nor can they
understand why anyone would even want to bother since all of those
connections are already made in the computer.

Thing is that you can SEE and FEEL the signal paths if you have real
hardware, but you can't do that with a computer-based system. You can
see representations of connections, sure, but you can never be sure
where you're losing the signal if it doesn't get to where you expect
it.

It's easy to move a hardware control and hear an instant change (if
you move the right control) but with software, you often need to build
the control first (or select it from a menu or template) and make its
connections. And there's almost always a small time lag between when
you move the control and hear a change, so it's difficult to "sneak
up" on the right setting. But some people love the resolution with
which a control can be set and the ability to reset it accurately. If
you really want to boost 2.374 kHz by 4.28 dB, you can do that - every
time. On a hardware mixer, you trun the controls until you like the
sound and if someone asks "What are your EQ settings on that guitar?"
your answer is "Oh, I dunno, a little boost around two and a half
kilohertz." Not very satisfying to someone who wants to make his
guitar sound just like yours (HAH!)

With a recorder/mixer there's all kinds of hassles to worry about,
plus once you got them tracks on the machine, it's pure hell to try
and bounce and arrange stuff and fuhgeddaboud editing etc. I think it
seriously limits any creativity and the complex technology gets in the
way, and when you're done, you need to mix it (which you can't do
again once its set then) which also takes a lotta time AND is
difficult.

So why do all of that? People with hardware work differently. They
record things that they want to hear in the finished product and most
of the work is done before final mixdown. Why edit when you can play
it right or punch it in? Why do the mix again when you have it right?
You can work that way with a DAW, but most pepole don't, because they
don't have to. And they get into all sorts of detailed edits, volume
envelopes, plug-ins, and never-ending mix sessions.

With a DAW on the other hand, all you need is load the multitracker,
plug in the mics and all you need to worry is not to overload inputs.
Just press record.

And then what have you got? A jigsaw puzzle of audio scraps!

All in all...I've been making home recordings and music for years and
years, learning as I go. I used to have outboard gear, mixers, stuff,
recorders...but when I really found the DAW recording, the whole
recording thing in itself has turned from time-hogging necessity to
something transparent that I don't need to worry about at all.

OK, so you're the other kind of person. Or maybe you record music
that's much more appropriate for construction after audio capture. A
DAW is a good approach for someone who composes by recording and
arranging. The song can go in many different directions so you don't
need to know where you'll end up before you start. A hardware system
is better for people who have a song and an arrangement and maybe even
a band. Your goal is to get out what you put in. Not to make something
new and different from what you put in.

I just think nothing is as easy and liberating as Cubase and a
soundcard on my laptop.

And I think there's nothing as liberating as putting one or two mics
in front of a good musician or band and say "Take One!" and then move
on to the next song.

[DeeAa[_3_]]

On 9 syys, 13:34, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:15 am, DeeAa wrote:

Thing is that you can SEE and FEEL the signal paths if you have real
hardware, but you can't do that with a computer-based system. You can
see representations of connections, sure, but you can never be sure
where you're losing the signal if it doesn't get to where you expect
it.

I get the idea, yeah...but to me it's more simple on my DAW. I have 8
inputs, I plug in the mic, and if I only have Cubase on, I see the
audio meter move when I knock on the mic. I don't see how it could be
more direct and simple really - plug in, and you see it's active.

Of course, it requires that the hardware is installed properly in the
beginning, so that you have a base to start working with. But after
that it's just plug in and go, save under new name for each song.

It's easy to move a hardware control and hear an instant change (if
you move the right control) but with software, you often need to build
the control first (or select it from a menu or template) and make its
connections. And there's almost always a small time lag between when
you move the control and hear a change, so it's difficult to "sneak
up" on the right setting. But some people love the resolution with
which a control can be set and the ability to reset it accurately. If
you really want to boost 2.374 kHz by 4.28 dB, you can do that - every
time. On a hardware mixer, you trun the controls until you like the
sound and if someone asks "What are your EQ settings on that guitar?"
your answer is "Oh, I dunno, a little boost around two and a half
kilohertz." *Not very satisfying to someone who wants to make his
guitar sound just like yours (HAH!)

Yeah this I can understand. However I like to be able to freely shape
the curves on EQ with a mouse - while listening - instead of finding
the frequencies by ear alone, Q values etc. Plus I can have several
settings and A/B them with just a click.

But I understand in some ways turning knobs can be more immediate
sometimes.

So why do all of that? People with hardware work differently. They
record things that they want to hear in the finished product and most
of the work is done before final mixdown. Why edit when you can play
it right or punch it in? Why do the mix again when you have it right?
You can work that way with a DAW, but most pepole don't, because they
don't have to. And they get into all sorts of detailed edits, volume
envelopes, plug-ins, and never-ending mix sessions.

Ah, that is very true...when you can infinitely tweak it, you also
tend to, and never finish it :-)

With a DAW on the other hand, all you need is load the multitracker,
plug in the mics and all you need to worry is not to overload inputs.
Just press record.

And then what have you got? A jigsaw puzzle of audio scraps!

Well, I dunno...I think the audio graphs are pretty simple, like Lego
parts or something. I find it extremely difficult to try and figure
out track bouncing on HD recorders, though, or just keep track of
which session/track is which. Like on my Fostex, I had to write down
stuff like track 18 project 048, at 2:30 guitar comes in etc...on a
DAW you see it all in one glance on a clear timeline and just jump to
where you want to punch etc.

And I think there's nothing as liberating as putting one or two mics
in front of a good musician or band and say "Take One!" and then move
on to the next song.

Yeah, sure...but I'd still rather have them files on my DAW so I can
see the dates, times, and project names etc. right there and never
lose 'em.

Cheers,

Dee

[Mike Rivers]

DeeAa wrote:

I get the idea, yeah...but to me it's more simple on my DAW. I have 8
inputs, I plug in the mic, and if I only have Cubase on, I see the
audio meter move when I knock on the mic. I don't see how it could be
more direct and simple really - plug in, and you see it's active.

Yeah, but how about the other seven inputs? And how about when you have
more than eight tracks? You need to find the button or pull-down menu
for the track where you designate the source (whether it comes from
Input 1, Input 2, Input 7 and so on). And in order to hear it you need
to assign the track to an output destination, which you have to connect
(hardware) to your monitor system. And you have to mix in the DAW.

When I have to work with a DAW, when I'm tracking, I do the simplest mix
possible. I usually leave all the levels the same, knock the pans
around, and leave it. And when I want headphone mixes for the players in
the studio, that's another headache that I frequently use as an example
for "why don't they design DAWs to do these things automatically?").
When I'm working on a real mixer, I do a real mix, refine it as we go
along, and it's pretty well set up (and I know the moves) when we go to
mix it for real. Now if you only record yourself, you don't need as much
flexibility as a DAW can offer, so you can ignore a lot of what it does
and how you have to get it to do that.

Well, I dunno...I think the audio graphs are pretty simple, like Lego
parts or something. I find it extremely difficult to try and figure
out track bouncing on HD recorders, though, or just keep track of
which session/track is which.

You may be using "track bouncing" to describe something it isn't. It's
just a matter of making a mix of some (or all) tracks, patching the
output of the mixer to an empty track (or two for stereo) and recording
the mix. But that's something you don't have to do on a DAW since you
usually have more tracks available than can choke your computer. On the
other hand, that's more tracks to keep track of, and more postponement
of mixing those tracks. Nothing to say that you can't do the same
bouncing technique with a DAW, it's just that few people do it.

Yeah, sure...but I'd still rather have them files on my DAW so I can
see the dates, times, and project names etc. right there and never
lose 'em.

I used to write that on the tape box, and I can still read it 50 years
later. Will you be able to read your disk files 50 years later?



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 03:34:55 -0700 (PDT), Mike Rivers
wrote:

I just think nothing is as easy and liberating as Cubase and a
soundcard on my laptop.

And I think there's nothing as liberating as putting one or two mics
in front of a good musician or band and say "Take One!" and then move
on to the next song.

And I've just spent an afternoon doing (mostly) just that into a DAW.
Except that just once, when we didn't quite agree on how to time an
ending, I was able to say "Don't worry - apart from that it was a
great take. I can easily slide that note along." And I could.

A DAW is a good approach for someone who composes by recording and
arranging. The song can go in many different directions so you don't
need to know where you'll end up before you start. A hardware system
is better for people who have a song and an arrangement and maybe even
a band. Your goal is to get out what you put in. Not to make something
new and different from what you put in.

Oh Mike, you've really got to get rid of these prejudices!

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I used to have a Hi-Fi that didn't have auto gain. If you used good
tape it sounded as good as a DAT at the time, maybe a little better
(the PCM2500 was king in those days)

The Beta HiFi format was quite good, except when it buzzed, I have also made
a transfer of a recording that had been safety-copied to VHS HiFi. The
recording that exists is a lot better than the one that is lost, and the
CD-rom of the take had become unreadable. All things consideried it too was
quite good, not as clean as it could have been, but clean enough to have no
obvious flaws once it was back on a CD. What stuff I did was to address
issues with the stereo imaging that were a property of the chosen one-point
stereo microphone and its placement.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:50:52 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

I get the idea, yeah...but to me it's more simple on my DAW. I have 8
inputs, I plug in the mic, and if I only have Cubase on, I see the
audio meter move when I knock on the mic. I don't see how it could be
more direct and simple really - plug in, and you see it's active.

Yeah, but how about the other seven inputs?

You see those too. Both in the main mixer window, and in a mini-meter
beside the track it's feeding.

And how about when you have
more than eight tracks? You need to find the button or pull-down menu
for the track where you designate the source (whether it comes from
Input 1, Input 2, Input 7 and so on). And in order to hear it you need
to assign the track to an output destination, which you have to connect
(hardware) to your monitor system.

Sure. Exactly like pressing the routing buttons on a hardware mixer.
What's your point?

Your hardware studio has a normal configuration - you don't replug
every session. A DAW has as many preset configurations as you care to
save as templates.

And you have to mix in the DAW.

You can take it out to an analogue mixer if you want, or use a control
surface. Until you end up with more tracks than you have channels.
There the hardware stops dead - the DAW can continue.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 9, 12:58 pm, Laurence Payne wrote:

Yeah, but how about the other seven inputs?

You see those too. Both in the main mixer window, and in a mini-meter
beside the track it's feeding.

Yeah, after you've configured it to do that. And configured it to come
up with that "template" every time you start a new project. Seems like
every time I use a DAW I have to tell it what input to use for every
track. I'll admit to just not getting it, but I just haven't got it.

Sure. Exactly like pressing the routing buttons on a hardware mixer.
What's your point?

My point is that there are no buttons. You have to look too hard to
see how it's configured when you have an input and the meters don't
move.

Your hardware studio has a normal configuration - you don't replug
every session. A DAW has as many preset configurations as you care to
save as templates.

But then you have to remember to open the right template. Maybe I'm
just not using the right DAW (ProTools???) or I'm not using the DAW
right, but I find that if I've started a project, save it, close it,
and come back to it later, I often as not have to make input
assignments again before I can work on new tracks.

I've often said that when they demonstrate DAWs, they show you how
cool it is for editing and mixing, but they never show you what a pain
it is to get set up for tracking anything more complicated than a
single-source project.

You can take it out to an analogue mixer if you want, or use a control
surface.

Few control surfaces have enough buttons for me to be comfortable
with. Analog mixers are fine, but not many people have 48, or even 24
outputs available in their DAW hardware. Even I can mix 8 channels in
a DAW and not complain too much (but I'll complain some).

Until you end up with more tracks than you have channels.
There the hardware stops dead - the DAW can continue.

This is when the producer steps in. Or doesn't have to, if he's been
doing his job and not been on the phone during all the tracking
sessions.

[DeeAa[_3_]]

On 9 syys, 17:50, Mike Rivers wrote:

Yeah, but how about the other seven inputs? And how about when you have
more than eight tracks? You need to find the button or pull-down menu
for the track where you designate the source (whether it comes from
Input 1, Input 2, Input 7 and so on). And in order to hear it you need
to assign the track to an output destination, which you have to connect
(hardware) to your monitor system. And you have to mix in the DAW.

What I see in my DAW is first ten channels; each channels master fader
and input meter and to the right if there is any actual stuff on the
track. For the first eight I don't need to select inputs, they are
preset to eight actual inputs. Output is also always to master output
by preset, unless I want to create a submix track for headphones etc.
and send stuff there as well. Usually I don't need to select anything;
just plug in to any input and I see the meter on the corresponding
track.

If I need more than eight, then I just click 'new' and then I need to
select which of the inputs I want to use.

Output to monitor is hardly harder than with a mixer; for me its a
single digital line to my amp.

When I have to work with a DAW, when I'm tracking, I do the simplest mix
possible. I usually leave all the levels the same, knock the pans
around, and leave it. And when I want headphone mixes for the players in
the studio, that's another headache that I frequently use as an example
for "why don't they design DAWs to do these things automatically?").
When I'm working on a real mixer, I do a real mix, refine it as we go
along, and it's pretty well set up (and I know the moves) when we go to
mix it for real. Now if you only record yourself, you don't need as much
flexibility as a DAW can offer, so you can ignore a lot of what it does
and how you have to get it to do that.

Here I must beg to differ. I also keep it simple when tracking; I do
however toss a master compressor on the mains output and do some
panning, but basically that's it.

But the headphone mix (which I seldom use) is so much easier on a
DAW...on a hardware mixer, you have to assign an aux for each channel
and send that to a submixer so you can give the singer some verb when
singing etc, which has always seemed like next to an impossible task
for most every engineer I have worked with. When I sing for instance,
I want a kickdrum and bass plus some guitars, not much else. I want a
certain delay and some verb as well. Whenever I ask an engineer for a
mix like that, they always take their sweet time trying to route the
stuff right, and still I usually get pretty horrible mixes on phones.

But with my DAW...I can simply turn on delay and reverb directly on
input and select it not to commit it to 'tape', only the dry signal
will be recorded although the singer hears the FX. Or I can just send
whatever I want to a sub buss where I can have any FX and settings
with a touch, and even have ready-made setups for different
needs....and no need for patchbays or routing cables.

Like you, whenever the guitarist is fixing his gear or whatever, I
also keep refining the mix, throwing a compressor here and a
noisekiller there, and little by little it starts getting better and
better....I don't think in that respect the hardware/software route
really differ that much. The only real difference I can see is I can
just throw in gates at each track or ten different compressors in just
a few mouse clicks instead of lotsa routing. And I can mute all FX at
once too to do some more basic EQ tweaking etc. and still be able to
listen to the 'final' product with all the compressors and such at any
time - at the state of readiness it happens to be.

You may be using "track bouncing" to describe something it isn't. It's
just a matter of making a mix of some (or all) tracks, patching the
output of the mixer to an empty track (or two for stereo) and recording

Yeah, I meant, on the fostex, you could somehow move the 8 'work'
tracks on the side, and have another 8 empty work tracks while keeping
the 8 there - you could do it thrice for 24 tracks...but it was such a
complicated operation I never could understand how to do it.

All in all, the Fostex had like a 200-page manual and I never even
found out how to really punch in properly, because it involved setting
some markers and what not, and I was usually quite lost with whether I
even had the right setting on the mixer (like I never understood how
do I select the tracks that are monitored...those knobs had two
functions to follow either 'track' or 'input' but their function
depended on whether I was in 'monitor' or 'track and monitor' or
'track' mode on each track and the master output track too...it was
unbelievably hard to try and figure out what needs be done to even do
simple tasks such as listen to a given track while recording the
other, and have those somehow balanced to headphones...I dunno, I find
stuff like that incredibly hard.

One other thing I always had real problems to use is the patchbay...it
hurts my brain trying to see what connects where when I take out a
plug or insert one...I have to follow each line with the finger to
make sure where it goes etc.

All that is gone with DAWs...you can just toss anything onto any
channel insert and never worry about any routings. Or make FX busses
as need be and never worry about routings. Anything.

I used to write that on the tape box, and I can still read it 50 years
later. Will you be able to read your disk files 50 years later?

Ah, that will be an interesting issue indeed :-)

Will you be able to find a tape machine to run your tape in 50 years?

The answer is: I dunno. But I do think that in the future storage
media is so cheap people can save pretty much everything indefinitely,
in several places, and it will just accumulate and never vanish.

I have recently transferred old films from the 70's to digital, and I
have all that on my HD's.
Musicwise, most all the music I've done since 1994 I have on digital,
and since 1999 I have pretty much every project still in multitrack
format. On my laptop I have my whole CD collection ripped now; about
5000 songs where ever I want. Also on my IPod and my work machine and
my normal PC.

All that doesn't take much room even...and these days a terabyte of
HD's is cheap as bread.
I keep everything in at least two places all the time...plus, like
this laptop's data is stored automatically over the internet onto my
ISP's servers...every day it makes sure every new file is copied
there. I only have 50 gigabytes of such online backup service, but
it's fine for my laptop. The music stuff...my 300GB usb drive takes
care of all my music backup for now, and when it runs out, I'll just
get a terabyte backup disk or two.

In just a few years, 100 terabytes will be the norm on any computer.
Then I will have all the work I ever did on all my machine HD's plus
most of it online somewhere. The storages just grow and grow. Hell, I
have 2500 hours(!) of online video storage for my digital TV already.
If I wanted, I could just select to save all the TV programs on all
channels for like a week and I'd still have lotsa room left. In
reality I only use maybe 160Gb for most my everyday timeshifting of TV
programs anyway.

If I now have a 24-megabyte net access with 2500 hours of video
storage, 50GB of backup data storage...what will it be in a few years?
I've no doubt in 5 years my net access will be 100+ and the online
backup storage is at least half a terabyte. And that means, even if my
house would burn and all my data gone, they'd still be safe at my ISP
and accessible from anywhere in the world.

I think that does beat a tape, however well they do survive otherwise.

Cheers,

Dee

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 9, 12:47 pm, Laurence Payne wrote:

And I think there's nothing as liberating as putting one or two mics
in front of a good musician or band and say "Take One!" and then move
on to the next song.

And I've just spent an afternoon doing (mostly) just that into a DAW.
Except that just once, when we didn't quite agree on how to time an
ending, I was able to say "Don't worry - apart from that it was a
great take. I can easily slide that note along." And I could.

That's an excellent application for a DAW, and I endorse that. What I
don't enjoy is the tedium involved in doing what's so easy on a
console and with a patchbay. At least I find it tedious. Could be
because I don't see really well and it's often difficult for me to
find the right button to click on or the right menu to pull down. But
I think they're great for editing, though for a long project with few
edits, a razor blade is often faster - but it's not usual to get the
whole program on tape these days, so a DAW edit is usually necessary.

Oh Mike, you've really got to get rid of these prejudices!

Why? Got a well paying project for me?

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:58 pm, Laurence Payne wrote:

Yeah, but how about the other seven inputs?
You see those too. Both in the main mixer window, and in a mini-meter
beside the track it's feeding.

Yeah, after you've configured it to do that. And configured it to come
up with that "template" every time you start a new project. Seems like
every time I use a DAW I have to tell it what input to use for every
track. I'll admit to just not getting it, but I just haven't got it.

Sure. Exactly like pressing the routing buttons on a hardware mixer.
What's your point?

My point is that there are no buttons. You have to look too hard to
see how it's configured when you have an input and the meters don't
move.

Your hardware studio has a normal configuration - you don't replug
every session. A DAW has as many preset configurations as you care to
save as templates.

But then you have to remember to open the right template. Maybe I'm
just not using the right DAW (ProTools???) or I'm not using the DAW
right, but I find that if I've started a project, save it, close it,
and come back to it later, I often as not have to make input
assignments again before I can work on new tracks.

Dude, c'mon man... you have to know how to plug in a mixer, don't you?
Know your tools and you'll do a good job. What you just described is an
inability to efficiently use a workstation. You can easily find someone
that is equally as uncomfortable on a hardware mixer. Hell, I can FLY on
a DAW, and I started out with a tape machine and console like everyone
else... I'm sure there are younger guys that would make look like an old
codger on a computer rig.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

I used to have a Hi-Fi that didn't have auto gain. If you used good
tape it sounded as good as a DAT at the time, maybe a little better
(the PCM2500 was king in those days)

The Beta HiFi format was quite good, except when it buzzed, I have also made
a transfer of a recording that had been safety-copied to VHS HiFi. The
recording that exists is a lot better than the one that is lost, and the
CD-rom of the take had become unreadable. All things consideried it too was
quite good, not as clean as it could have been, but clean enough to have no
obvious flaws once it was back on a CD. What stuff I did was to address
issues with the stereo imaging that were a property of the chosen one-point
stereo microphone and its placement.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen




Back when I first started with digital anything, I had a choice to pay
$8,000 for a gray market DAT, $2,500 for a Sony PCM-F1 or $800 for a
Sony HiFi VCR. I opted for the VCR and it did me just fine until DATs
could be imported cheaply. When the Tascam DA-30 came out, I bought it
and all of the VCR tapes got tranferred, I didn't have any problems.

[[email protected]]

I should have known this would devolve into a hardware/software
debate. But I'm glad it did since that's the dichotomy I laid out to
begin with, and I myself was questioning it.

I agree with Richard; if they can't play or sing it right, I wouldn't
want to fudge their notes with the software either. The most
interesting element of music is the human spirit, conveying itself, in
the medium of sonic vibration. By altering performances afterwards,
one basically is stripping the humanity from it and beginning the
process of sterilizing it from its vitality. Also, it doesn't
represent truth, although that doesn't bother me as much as the
sterilization.

I think the same thing goes for the chopping, editing, etc.,
afterwards, in the software environment. I think that's pretty boring
music, because it loses the sense of continuity that comes from human
beings in musical performance. It wouldn't bother me as much if the
whole point of the piece was to present a collage-like piece
(something avant garde), but when it's used to produce what appears to
be continuous music of some standard genre, then to me, it sounds like
layered, canned music, nothing more. And a lot of music these days
sounds like that, and it isn't very interesting, because the
interaction of minds creating music together is missing.

I guess what I realized is that I don't want to be staring at a
computer screen when I mix. I would rather have my hands on the knobs
and be listening. I'm with Mike - to much pointing of the mouse and
clicking for my own likes. But it goes beyond that - something
intangible. I lose my inspiration when I try to record to computer.

Lou

On Sep 9, 1:59*pm, wrote:
On 2008-09-09 said:
* *it was a *great take. *I can easily slide that note along." *And I
* *could.
* *That's an excellent application for a DAW, and I endorse that. What
* *I don't enjoy is the tedium involved in doing what's so easy on a
* *console and with a patchbay. At least I find it tedious. Could be
* *because I don't see really well and it's often difficult for me to
* *find the right button to click on or the right menu to pull down.
* *But I think they're great for editing, though for a long project
* *with few edits, a razor blade is often faster - but it's not usual
* *to get the whole program on tape these days, so a DAW edit is
* *usually necessary.
MIght be, but I'll let somebody else play. *I don't mouse,
don't intend to mouse, and don't like that way of working.
I could handle a razor blade and a splicing block just fine
g.
As for "sliding that note" or autotuning, etc. *I'll let
somebody else mess with all that. *IF you can't sing or play
that note where you want it, the most I want with you is to
collect my $$$ after recording your performance, such as it
is. *LEt your producer and other parties piece together a
performance. *I find it tedious and not pleasant at all, in
fact I find it unpleasant.
AS for this old fart, I still like my hardware, patch bays,
mixers with actual buttons switches and knobs, and
performers who can actually deliver a performance.

IF that's a "prejudice" it's one I don't intend to shed, now
or in the future.

Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:01:57 -0700 (PDT), Mike Rivers
wrote:

And I've just spent an afternoon doing (mostly) just that into a DAW.
Except that just once, when we didn't quite agree on how to time an
ending, I was able to say "Don't worry - apart from that it was a
great take. I can easily slide that note along." And I could.

That's an excellent application for a DAW, and I endorse that. What I
don't enjoy is the tedium involved in doing what's so easy on a
console and with a patchbay. At least I find it tedious. Could be
because I don't see really well and it's often difficult for me to
find the right button to click on or the right menu to pull down. But
I think they're great for editing, though for a long project with few
edits, a razor blade is often faster - but it's not usual to get the
whole program on tape these days, so a DAW edit is usually necessary.

Clutching at straws rather, aren't you? My eyesight isn't what it was
either. I often have to look really hard at my analogue mixer to see
which routing buttons are down.

If you really find it faster to spool through a tape, mark the edit
point, cut the tape, make the joint.... than to make a few clicks on a
computer screen, I'm afraid you just aren't trying very hard. And
ofcourse, the sort of edit I described wouldn't be possible at all on
tape.


Oh Mike, you've really got to get rid of these prejudices!

Why? Got a well paying project for me?

Maybe writing reviews of digital audio products from a different
perspective than "I hate digital"? :-)

[Mike Rivers]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Dude, c'mon man... you have to know how to plug in a mixer, don't you?
Know your tools and you'll do a good job.

Aw, geez, Romeo. Do we have to have this stale discussion AGAIN?

What you just described is an
inability to efficiently use a workstation. You can easily find someone
that is equally as uncomfortable on a hardware mixer.

The thing is that a mixer doesn't change. The Main L/R outputs will
always have the stereo outputs. The direct outputs will always have the
mic preamp signal (maybe after the EQ and/or fader but whatever they
are, they're always the same). And everything has a label that's always
there. And if there's a plug in the jack you know that the signal is
going SOMEWHERE - and you can find out where by following the cable. It
may take a little getting used to, but it's stable, intuitive, and has a
consistent vocabulary. None of that is true with software. Sure, you
have to learn (or teach someone) how to use anything the first time. But
it's easier, I think, to comprehend and remember what you learn when you
have hardware in front of you, and things that you forget come back to
you quicker when you can look at the labels on the chassis or the block
diagram and don't have to think "I know I've seen that somewhere. Which
menu is it under?" That's what slows me down most on a DAW, particularly
when I don't use one for a while.

Hell, I can FLY on
a DAW, and I started out with a tape machine and console like everyone
else... I'm sure there are younger guys that would make look like an old
codger on a computer rig.

Depends on where you're going. I can edit faster on a DAW than on a tape
deck, but I usually can't set up for a recording or mixing session as
quickly unless all the gear is packed away in the closet.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:
I should have known this would devolve into a hardware/software
debate.

Only as long as people continue to use software. g

I agree with Richard; if they can't play or sing it right, I wouldn't
want to fudge their notes with the software either. The most
interesting element of music is the human spirit, conveying itself, in
the medium of sonic vibration. By altering performances afterwards,
one basically is stripping the humanity from it and beginning the
process of sterilizing it from its vitality.

There are certain bounds that are reasonable to accept. If you have a
good take with all the spirit and human feeling that the song requires,
but it's marred by a missed note or a sloppy ending, you have a couple
of choices. You can ignore it - which used to be the way to go, or you
can try to fix it one way or other. There are many "fixit" tools, one of
which is to do it over again. But when you sing the song too many times,
what you might gain in technical perfection you often lose in emotion.
Or sometimes not. It depends on the artist and the song.

I'm more inclined to get a new section recorded (play the break over
again in full context, or repeat the ending) and fix it with an edit
rather than try to find a good note elsewhere in the take and use it to
replace the clunker. Why? Because I just find it to be faster or more
natural. It doesn't take very long to splice in the note, but it often
takes more time to find it than to re-record. But some people can work
comfortably and get good results by using other tools. Still, if you
have to do too much patch-up, you end up with something that doesn't
represent the original performance. That might not be what you want - or
maybe it is. It's an artistic judgment - you can't just blindly follow a
rule and be right all the time.

I guess what I realized is that I don't want to be staring at a
computer screen when I mix.

On the other hand, staring at a computer screen when I'm editing isn't
so bad. I have to stare at a piece of tape on which I've made pencil
marks. The difference for me, though, is finding the edit point on the
graphic display, both initially (which is easier by actually rocking
physical tape reels than any software approximation to the process), and
when I'm actually doing the edit. With the ability to put markers in the
graphic screen, it's hard for me to come up with a good excuse for why I
have trouble with the latter, but I do. Probably because when I'm zoomed
in far enough to see the waveform, I lose track of where I am in the
song. It's like looking at a two-inch piece of tape to find a 1/16 inch
window for making the edit rather than having a whole reel where I can
easily shuttle from the beginning of a verse to the edit point. Like
Romeo said, it's a matter of learning to use the tools, but I don't find
that the tools work all that well for me. Others don't seem to mind.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Maybe writing reviews of digital audio products from a different
perspective than "I hate digital"? :-)

I shy away from reviewing software because I can't learn it quickly
enough to be able to say how easy it is to use. I don't mind reviewing
digital hardware, though. There's a lot of cool stuff out there that you
don't have to do anything with but hook it up. Then you can turn the
knobs on the panel.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

MIke wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
Maybe writing reviews of digital audio products from a different
perspective than "I hate digital"? :-)
I shy away from reviewing software because I can't learn it quickly
enough to be able to say how easy it is to use. I don't mind
reviewing digital hardware, though. There's a lot of cool stuff out
there that you don't have to do anything with but hook it up. Then
you can turn the knobs on the panel.
Amen. IT isn't so much that I "hate digital" I just don't
like working with most of the computer stuff.
FIrst and foremost, I have to use some sort of screen access
technology to use it. Screen access technology and any daw
you find are both going to be cpu hogs. IT's the nature of
the beasts and what they do. Just these two applications
trying to work together makes for a rather unstable system.

i like the immediacy of hardware. I actually enjoy the part
of the process which is finding the sweet spots for the
microphones and the other parts of the capture. I'll
suggest the artist punch in that chorus verse or solo that
wasn't uqite what they want, if and I've got a spare track
even use it. wIth hardware though I"m not stumbling around
on the client's dime. Patch the device in that we want, I
know where it goes. ADjust the controls on the front panel
to get the sound we want.

OTher folks obviously work differently, and that's why there
are different tools. I"ll suggest to a client with the need
of working that way that they find want of the masters of
the daw in a NEw YOrk minute. I don't take the big truck to
the small engine mechanic, or have the psychiatrist consult
on open heart surgery. GUys like MIke and me work better
when the musicians are rehearsed and there's possibly a
producer. YOu know going in you don't need 56 tracks or
more so that you can experiment with all these combinations.
Set up the mics and instruments, get a good blend, record.

WHere we run into all these daw vs. hardware controversies
in this group is when folks forget that some have their
methods of working with the tools they use that get the job
done.
YEs one can migrate from tape machines and hardware to doing
it all on his workstation of choice. I surmise I wouldn't
like to do a large tracking session with multiple headphone
mixes etc. on a daw even if I *could* see the screen. IT's
just the way I learned to work back there in the stone age
g. IT's familiar, and being familiar allows me to
concentrate on what's important, and that's the sound I"m
capturing. IF I have to change up my way of working too
much I find myself focusing on getting that part right, and
the capture suffers. Been there, done that, haven't liked
the results I"ve gotten.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Dude, c'mon man... you have to know how to plug in a mixer, don't you?
Know your tools and you'll do a good job.

Aw, geez, Romeo. Do we have to have this stale discussion AGAIN?

I was thinking the same thing when I typed my post :-)



What you just described is an inability to efficiently use a
workstation. You can easily find someone that is equally as
uncomfortable on a hardware mixer.

The thing is that a mixer doesn't change. The Main L/R outputs will
always have the stereo outputs. The direct outputs will always have the
mic preamp signal (maybe after the EQ and/or fader but whatever they
are, they're always the same). And everything has a label that's always
there. And if there's a plug in the jack you know that the signal is
going SOMEWHERE - and you can find out where by following the cable. It
may take a little getting used to, but it's stable, intuitive, and has a
consistent vocabulary. None of that is true with software. Sure, you
have to learn (or teach someone) how to use anything the first time. But
it's easier, I think, to comprehend and remember what you learn when you
have hardware in front of you, and things that you forget come back to
you quicker when you can look at the labels on the chassis or the block
diagram and don't have to think "I know I've seen that somewhere. Which
menu is it under?" That's what slows me down most on a DAW, particularly
when I don't use one for a while.

Hell, I can FLY on
a DAW, and I started out with a tape machine and console like everyone
else... I'm sure there are younger guys that would make look like an
old codger on a computer rig.

Depends on where you're going. I can edit faster on a DAW than on a tape
deck, but I usually can't set up for a recording or mixing session as
quickly unless all the gear is packed away in the closet.

You just need a template :-) I can switch from tracking to mixing in .2
seconds, how about you?

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

OTher folks obviously work differently, and that's why there
are different tools. I"ll suggest to a client with the need
of working that way that they find want of the masters of
the daw in a NEw YOrk minute. I don't take the big truck to
the small engine mechanic, or have the psychiatrist consult
on open heart surgery. GUys like MIke and me work better
when the musicians are rehearsed and there's possibly a
producer. YOu know going in you don't need 56 tracks or
more so that you can experiment with all these combinations.
Set up the mics and instruments, get a good blend, record.

I like those sessions, too. They are _incredibly_ easy to record on a
computer :-)


WHere we run into all these daw vs. hardware controversies
in this group is when folks forget that some have their
methods of working with the tools they use that get the job
done.
YEs one can migrate from tape machines and hardware to doing
it all on his workstation of choice. I surmise I wouldn't
like to do a large tracking session with multiple headphone
mixes etc. on a daw even if I *could* see the screen. IT's
just the way I learned to work back there in the stone age
g. IT's familiar, and being familiar allows me to
concentrate on what's important, and that's the sound I"m
capturing. IF I have to change up my way of working too
much I find myself focusing on getting that part right, and
the capture suffers. Been there, done that, haven't liked
the results I"ve gotten.

[[email protected]]

ROmeo wrote:

GUys like MIke and me work better
when the musicians are rehearsed and there's possibly a
producer. YOu know going in you don't need 56 tracks or
more so that you can experiment with all these combinations.
Set up the mics and instruments, get a good blend, record.
I like those sessions, too. They are _incredibly_ easy to record on
a computer :-)
Alright, picture yourself working on that computer using
screen access technology. YOu must listen to it chatter at
you as you use either keystroke combinations or something
else to emulate the mouse.
ONe of the musicians asks for more piano in his headphone
mix. SO you're hunting for the right place to adjust the
piano's volume in his mix, meanwhile the lead guitarist is
noodling, the drummer doing things with his drum kit; the
lead singer doing vocal exercises.

wIth hardware, I grab the right friggin' control, we go on
recording. YOu can have your mouse. I'll stick with real
hardware, thanks anyway.




Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:15:15 GMT, wrote:

Amen. IT isn't so much that I "hate digital" I just don't
like working with most of the computer stuff.
FIrst and foremost, I have to use some sort of screen access
technology to use it. Screen access technology and any daw
you find are both going to be cpu hogs. IT's the nature of
the beasts and what they do. Just these two applications
trying to work together makes for a rather unstable system.

Fair enough. Your special circumstances make the decision for you.
But they also really disqualify you from the general discussion, don't
they!

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

wrote:
ROmeo wrote:

GUys like MIke and me work better
when the musicians are rehearsed and there's possibly a
producer. YOu know going in you don't need 56 tracks or
more so that you can experiment with all these combinations.
Set up the mics and instruments, get a good blend, record.
I like those sessions, too. They are _incredibly_ easy to record on
a computer :-)
Alright, picture yourself working on that computer using
screen access technology. YOu must listen to it chatter at
you as you use either keystroke combinations or something
else to emulate the mouse.

Chatter? What are you talking about? I use Nuendo, it doesn't chatter at
all.

ONe of the musicians asks for more piano in his headphone
mix. SO you're hunting for the right place to adjust the
piano's volume in his mix, meanwhile the lead guitarist is
noodling, the drummer doing things with his drum kit; the
lead singer doing vocal exercises.

Why would I be "hunting" for anything? I just turn the know that says
"Piano Cue" or something similar, just like you would on a hardware console.


wIth hardware, I grab the right friggin' control, we go on
recording. YOu can have your mouse. I'll stick with real
hardware, thanks anyway.

I don't see the difference, and I worked on consoles for years. I will
agree that I don't like using the mouse very much... that's why I have a
control surface.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 10, 2:30 pm, Romeo Rondeau wrote:

You just need a template :-) I can switch from tracking to mixing in .2
seconds, how about you?

In my multitrack setup, I'm always in mixing mode. The recorder
returns go to the main faders and the recorder switches whether its
input or playback goes to the console. I can be working on the mix
while the guitar player is doing his 12th overdub.