Hybrid Systems

bachelorb

Cowboy Chord Virtuoso
This has been going through my mind for a while now. I only record myself, and don’t seem to have the discipline to maintain the same guitar volume (we’ll call it emotion.... :D ). Anyway, in the past, I’ve made numerous notes about the tape counter and fiddled with the faders in the right spots to try to get the sound like I wanted. Now, I’m playing other instruments with the “emotion” in the wrong spots....and that has got me thinking about using a DAW for automation.

Since this is new to me, I’d love to here the pros and cons of hybrid systems, as well as how people who have them use them.

Thanks,
Brad
 
I use a hybrid, but I am sure everyone uses it differently. I went from analog back in the day to digital only, and now to hybrid. Mostly, I use the DAW now (Logic Pro X) as an arrangement and composition tool, then as a "recorder" as well as sync my Tascam 38 to it.

For mixing, I try to stick with using only volume and pan Automation in the DAW but sometimes do use other features. The DAW feeds my analog mixers and summing. I'll attempt to set the analog mixer faders at 0db. I also use external comps, EQ's, and FX. With outboard gear (like compressors) though, when a track is automated inside the DAW, level changes may affect how that outboard gear responds.

A big con for me was the learning curve - wrapping my head around what gets plugged in where. But now I have a bunch of "labelled" patchbays - and cables....so that makes it a lot easier.

I have a bunch of new equipment, and am still kind of experimenting with the setups, especially how I am going to "sum", but its pretty cool having the hybrid and best of both worlds.


~Mike
 
Brad. I dont know how this would apply to you, but here's what I use. May be irrelevant and useless but also helpful.

I have 3 core components to my setup.
1) Tascam msr16 tape machine
2) Allen and Heath ICE16. 16 in 16 out converter (no onboard preamps)
3) Tascam M520 mixing console. 20 input/8 buss console

I record to tape and feed the tape output into the Allen and Heath converter where it is stored on an external SSD hard drive.
My analog signal is now in the digital domain in the form of a wav file.

From there it goes either into protools or reaper where I can manipulate the source material at will.

From the daw I have the choice of either mixing 100% in the box, or bringing it back to the Allen and Heath coverter. Then it gets input into the desk.

This way with it's 16 analog outs, I can feed my console and have 4 channels left for hardware processing devices.

Mixing like this on the console is super easy, because I'm doing zero fader rides. That's already been done in the daw via automation.
Besides, It's cool having unlimited "1176" compressors in protools. :D

Anyhoo, it might be zero help to you, but that's how I do it.
 
Going hybrid is all good...but I wouldn't look toward a DAW simply as a way to fix your performance issues.
Oh sure...it's great when you can do an edit here and there...but I think if you simply practiced more, and listened to the playback, so you can hear what's wrong with your "over emotional" performances...you could correct it at the source.

That said...don't be too quick to level out emotional playing. That's where the magic is often found, and you take it at face value...or kill the emotion.

Otherwise, having both an analog/tape setup and a DAW system gives you lots of options and possibilities that either alone do not. You can go as big and complicated as you like and can afford, but a lot can also be done with a smaller, more modest hybrid studio.
 
Oh good! I'm glad you posted, Miro!
I've been gone and only recently posted a little bit. But it seems every thread I've posted in dies.
Been starting to think I'm a 'thread killer"
:D

Back on topic. Lots of good things have been brought up here. Sure it will give you plenty to think about.
 
Yep.... I'll be thinking a bunch.... Right now I have an old Tascam US-800 to get tracks into the computer.... I can't go the other way, but I thought I may incorporate the 800 into my setup as I hope to be starting to cable and patch in the M-312 this coming week.

I could just use outboard compressors JP, but thought it might be time to learn what this DAW thing is all about too. I'm a little limited since I'm running a linux system. I've chosen Ardour as the DAW because it seems to offer the most versitility (and works with the (US-800 interface.....). I'm sure the lack of or quality of plugins will be an issue, but I'm just start to figure it out, so I probably won't know the difference.

Thanks for posting your setups. R.... I think I'm looking towards what your doing and recording to tape and feeding the tracks into the computer for a digital editable track. Right now, I don't think I'll be able to take the tracks back out to the mixer like fstrat does.

Miro.... emotional playing is good, but sometimes I get so emotional, I'll catch the high e string with the pick and then yell a compound word..... so hard to take that out of an analog system..... (part of my reason for going digital is my lack of talent...... :) ). ...but I also like the ability to be able to experiment with different things.......

Thank you for your replys..... I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!!!

Brad
 
I could just use outboard compressors JP, but thought it might be time to learn what this DAW thing is all about too. I'm a little limited since I'm running a linux system. I've chosen Ardour as the DAW because it seems to offer the most versitility (and works with the (US-800 interface.....). I'm sure the lack of or quality of plugins will be an issue, but I'm just start to figure it out, so I probably won't know the difference.

I'd be interested to know how that goes. I haven't had much luck with that one - JACK in general is a bit of a headache - but at the same time Audacity is a bit limited.
 
I'd be interested to know how that goes. I haven't had much luck with that one - JACK in general is a bit of a headache - but at the same time Audacity is a bit limited.

I’m using pulseaudio and alsa.... I had all sorts of problems with jack..... everything I’ve read said the Tascam should match up with alsa (I haven’t tried the US-800 with it yet but I will this week).
 
Lately I’ve been a Hybrid Creeper....

If you guys who use digital and analog are starting to feel a bit uneasy..... it’s just me :)

Backstory: I’m a lame songwriter who does this for a hobby. Trying to learn home recording from the ground up. Occasionally I record other people for which I charge them $0/hr studio time. I must be doing alright though because I have never had to give a refund..... ;)

I have finally gotten a Windows 10 machine. Linux was just too hard to find compatible things for. I’ve started setting up the system and wanted to see what you guys thought. I wanted to keep my “analog only” capability too. Please add any advice you can think of.

My thought is, I will always be recording to tape, then going to the DAW. Any more than the 4 tracks will be done ITB. I am concentrating (....for the moment.....) on using the DAW for Automation, noise reduction, and (since I only have a four track recorder) additional bounced tracks.
So here’s my setup:

Analog only (current):
12x8 Mixer => (Mono compressor/Reverb) => 4 channel tape=> mixer=> Digital mix down

......and here’s what I’m thinking......

Hybrid Setup (to DAW):
4 channel tape => mixer tape return inputs (Ch1-4) => Ch1-4 Direct Outs => 8x6 Audio Interface line inputs (3-6) => DAW

Hybrid Setup (out of DAW):
DAW=> 8x6 Audio Interface Outputs (1-6)=> Mixer Line in (7-12)=> (Mono compressor/Reverb) => 4 channel tape (...or digital mix down)

I think that this way, I can keep what I’m familiar with, and work my way more into the digital world.

My biggest question is.... Should I use 4 PGM group tape returns to go to the DAW rather than just the 4 channel tape returns? That would leave me 4 PGM groups available for other things, or should I keep all 8 PGM groups available?
Ex...
Hybrid Setup (to DAW):
4 channel tape => mixer PGM tape return inputs (PGM 1-4) => PGM1-4 Out =>Audio Interface line inputs (3-6) => DAW


Just curious if I am on the right track or not. Any suggestions y’all have are welcome.

Thanks,
Brad
 
I hate to do this to you but the only answer I can think of is "it depends..." . My first suggestion would be to pick up a patch bay and connect through that so you can easily switch setups. I realize it seems unnecessary but once it is set up the flexibility is headache reducing. If you are only recording to tape first your 4 track limit will still cause issues when transferred as and further taped tracks will have to be time aligned ITB. I personally still use tape for the occasional recording when I want that sound but it will only be those tracks that get recorded to tape-everything after that will be recorded direct to DAW. If you go into your mixer first you can record into DAW and tape at the same time then you will already have a time "blueprint" ITB , a more complex setup to be sure but it might help get every thing timed properly. Especially if you have at least one rhythm track that can be lined up easily.
 
......and here’s what I’m thinking......

Hybrid Setup (to DAW):
4 channel tape => mixer tape return inputs (Ch1-4) => Ch1-4 Direct Outs => 8x6 Audio Interface line inputs (3-6) => DAW

Hybrid Setup (out of DAW):
DAW=> 8x6 Audio Interface Outputs (1-6)=> Mixer Line in (7-12)=> (Mono compressor/Reverb) => 4 channel tape (...or digital mix down)

I think that this way, I can keep what I’m familiar with, and work my way more into the digital world.

My biggest question is.... Should I use 4 PGM group tape returns to go to the DAW rather than just the 4 channel tape returns? That would leave me 4 PGM groups available for other things, or should I keep all 8 PGM groups available?
Ex...
Hybrid Setup (to DAW):
4 channel tape => mixer PGM tape return inputs (PGM 1-4) => PGM1-4 Out =>Audio Interface line inputs (3-6) => DAW


Just curious if I am on the right track or not. Any suggestions y’all have are welcome.

Thanks,
Brad

TBH...without seeing the gear in front of me and looking at all the I/O options, etc...I'm just not able to be clear on what's best for you.
Just not visualizing it based on what you wrote above.

That said...I know what's best-BEST option, in general...and it's called a patchbay. :)

In my own hybrid setup, I would never run my tape outputs through my mixer and then to the DAW...I would go directly from the tape deck to the DAW.
The mixer tape/monitor section I only use to monitor the tape deck during tracking.
Likewise, the DAW outputs I always run to the mixer Line inputs when I want to mix.

You are only dumping from tape to DAW...so there is NO reason to have both tape deck and DAW hooked up to the mixer at the same time.

Point being...a patchbay allows you to choose/use the best I/O setup for a given task, rather than having to come up with some semi-permanent I/O setup without the patchbay, and one that is always less than ideal for a given situation, or where you have to do some work to re-connect all the gear in a different way.
Even if you have something that is almost always going to go from point A to B...putting it on a patchbay offers easy signal patching options, and makes anything possible.
 
alright...... I'll get a patchbay...... :p or maybe just reconfigure the ones I have. For just the small amount of analog equipment I have, I already have two full 16 row patchbays.....

GB..... I hear what your saying...as of now, any more than the four tracks I do on tape are going to be done ITB and bussed back to the four track tape player... I don't think there will be any timing issues there.

Miro- I remember reading how you use the patchbays as a way to organize your thoughts when you were recording... kind of thinking through the process.... (.....see...... I told you I was creepin..... :) )

I also read that you took the tracks right off the tapehead to the mixdown. Can you do that simultaneously on the same computer?...... My thought is to come out of the DAW=> Audio Interface=> Patch to 4 Track Recorder=> mixer => separate (or maybe the same?) Audio interface=> back to computer to record mixdown (something like Audacity)... Is this possible?

I am just trying to feel out processes right now from y'all who are in the know..... I have no idea where this is going to go........ shoot....... it was only a couple of years ago, I was fat dumb and happy in a travel trailer with a Portastudio.......and then someone suggested a rack mount...... :D
 
alright...... I'll get a patchbay...... :p or maybe just reconfigure the ones I have. For just the small amount of analog equipment I have, I already have two full 16 row patchbays.....

Ok...then just connect all your equipment I/O to the PBs...and then patch what you need for a given situation. If you want to do some normalling, fine, but I only do that with a couple of things, and the rest is all just straight inputs and outputs that need to be physically patchaed.

Miro- I remember reading how you use the patchbays as a way to organize your thoughts when you were recording... kind of thinking through the process.... (.....see...... I told you I was creepin..... :) )

I think what you are talking about is my saying that without using too much pre-connected or normalled gear...it makes me see and think about what's going where...etc...so I'm always conscious and deliberate about my signal chains. When stuff us pre-connected or normalled...you tend to forget about it, and/or take some things for granted.
Yeah...it requires more patch points not to normal anything...but it's not that big a deal, and IMO, is always the most straightforward way to go.
Only when I went I switched to the Trident console a couple of years ago did I bother including some normalled connections...and that happened mostly because with the console I also acquired some patchbays with all the cabling... basically almost all the cabling that goes to the back the of the console.
Some of that was already configured with normalled points (like the output of the tape returns to the Trident monitor section...and the console direct outs to the tape deck inputs...so I just went with this time, but if I had wired up the PBs myself from scratch, I probably would not have done that.
Why...?...because I have a hybrid setup...so today I'm tracking to the deck, and using the console for monitoring...but maybe tomorrow I will tracking to the DAW, and wanting to use the console for monitoring, so then I still have to patch and break the normal connections.
The whole thing about normalled points is if you have some very specific I/O setup that you will use like 90% of the time... but if you are going to be breaking those normal connections a lot...then why bother with them...just setup the bays as straight patchable I/O.

Anyway...that's just me...you can set them up how you prefer. :)

I also read that you took the tracks right off the tapehead to the mixdown. Can you do that simultaneously on the same computer?...... My thought is to come out of the DAW=> Audio Interface=> Patch to 4 Track Recorder=> mixer => separate (or maybe the same?) Audio interface=> back to computer to record mixdown (something like Audacity)... Is this possible?

Mmm...I'm not quite following your here.
The way I usually will track is to the tape deck, the DAW isn't even on. When tracking, I use the console purely for the cue monitoring of the recorded and live tape tracks...unless I want to use a console preamp during tracking, then I patch through that.
Once I'm done with that...I fire up the DAW, set up my sync system...and transfer the tracks from the tape deck to the DAW...the console is not part of that.
When I finish my DAW nonsense...I break out the DAW tracks to my console, and do the final mixing there, with my outboard processing.
That said....I've already done a lot of edits and processing and pre-mixing in the DAW before I come back out to the console...so during final mixdown, I'm working the tracks and processing both in the DAW and at my console and outboard. So it's a very hybrid thing. I don't just go from one to the other...I'm actually using both simultaneously when I do the final mix.

Not sure if that made things clearer or more confusing...
 
Mmm...I'm not quite following your here.
The way I usually will track is to the tape deck, the DAW isn't even on. When tracking, I use the console purely for the cue monitoring of the recorded and live tape tracks...unless I want to use a console preamp during tracking, then I patch through that.
Once I'm done with that...I fire up the DAW, set up my sync system...and transfer the tracks from the tape deck to the DAW...the console is not part of that.
When I finish my DAW nonsense...I break out the DAW tracks to my console, and do the final mixing there, with my outboard processing.
That said....I've already done a lot of edits and processing and pre-mixing in the DAW before I come back out to the console...so during final mixdown, I'm working the tracks and processing both in the DAW and at my console and outboard. So it's a very hybrid thing. I don't just go from one to the other...I'm actually using both simultaneously when I do the final mix.

Not sure if that made things clearer or more confusing...

I tried to find the post where I thought you said that. I subscribed to a few posts to keep from losing them, but I guess I did it wrong and they're In computer oblivion...... This was really helpful to get an idea of your process though.

One more question....(pretty much unrelated to all of this......), I put my mixing console on wheels so I could roll it into my recording area so I could see my meters to capture levels. Since you also mainly record for yourself, and your console is HUGE..... How do you get a feel for your recording levels?
 
One more question....(pretty much unrelated to all of this......), I put my mixing console on wheels so I could roll it into my recording area so I could see my meters to capture levels. Since you also mainly record for yourself, and your console is HUGE..... How do you get a feel for your recording levels?

My signal metering is mostly at the tape deck, since the console is only used for the cue mix during tracking.
Some of my outboard preamps also have metering.
I can generally see the tape deck meters from across the room...enough to know if the needle is in the ballpark or too low or getting slammed.

That said...for many things, I just know where knobs need to be to get me in the ballpark without even seeing the meters...but to fine-tune my input levels, it's simple...I hit REC, play a little, and then hit PB, and I can see what levels I was getting, and make the fine adjustments.
When I'm playing electric guitar/bass...I have long cords that let me cover all areas of the studio, so it's easy to walk up to the console or the tape deck and hit a few chords and see the meters.
Other than that...I do a lot of walking back-n-forth sometimes until things get set. :D

So you really don't need to always have the mixer and the meters in front of you, and as you keep recording more and more, you too will get to know where things need to be to get you in the ballpark.
If it's more comforting to wheel the mixer around...do that, but I would think with all the cabling and stuff...that's going to be a messy PITA.
 
I did a pretty good job of keeping everything in a converted rolling tv cabinet up to now, but now I'd have to hook and unhook from the computer. Looks like its time to invest in a notebook...... :)

Thanks Miro...... I'm getting an understanding of all this....

Brad
 
Would some kind of outboard compressor or limiter help with that?

I was just going over some old threads I use as reference and ran across this. I did take your suggestion on using a compressor JP, and it worked out great for me. I’ve also read about the pitfalls of doing this, but when I did it, it worked out beautifully..... I think I ended up doing this on 3 or 4 tracks....

A belated thank you!!
 
Back
Top